ABSTRACT
The use of advanced imaging in routine diagnostic practice appears to provide only limited value in patients with migraine who have not experienced recent changes in headache characteristics or symptoms. However, advanced imaging may have potential for studying the biological manifestations and pathophysiology of migraine headaches. Migraine with aura appears to have characteristic spatiotemporal changes in structural anatomy, function, hemodynamics, metabolism, and biochemistry, whereas migraine without aura produces more subtle and complex changes. Large, controlled, multicenter imaging-based observational trials are needed to confirm the anecdotal evidence in the literature and test the scientific hypotheses thought to underscore migraine pathophysiology.
Subject(s)
Brain/diagnostic imaging , Brain/physiopathology , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Migraine Disorders/diagnosis , Migraine Disorders/physiopathology , Humans , Neuroimaging/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize the reasons manuscripts are rejected after peer review from the journal Headache. BACKGROUND: Numerous editorials, reviews, and research manuscripts have been published on the topic of manuscript rejection. However, few of these papers evaluate the reasons for rejection after peer review systematically. None are specific to the field of neurology or headache medicine. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all submissions to Headache from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 was performed. Peer reviewer and editor comments for each manuscript were reviewed, and unlimited reasons for rejection were coded for each manuscript. Detailed reasons for rejection were then grouped into 9 broader categories. RESULTS: A total of 784 submissions were received from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Of those, 336 were immediately rejected and 434 went on to peer review. During this period, the overall rejection rate was 62.6% and the rejection rate after peer review was 35.7%. The 6 most common reasons for rejection after peer review were: flaws in methodology and study design, poor reporting of methodology, poor statistical analysis, overstatement of conclusions, problems with covariates or outcomes, and problems with the control or case group. CONCLUSION: Flaws in methodology and study design were the most common reasons for rejection after peer review from Headache between 2014-2016.
