Talk:Orthostatic headache

Untitled
Our goal was to further expand on the stub Orthostatic Headache. We only found a few sources, which are listed below on the main space article. Because there are few sources, the information we were able to grab from each is pretty straight forward and already included in our revised article. We thought the original causes section was good and left the original authors work. We didn't elaborate on the different drugs because they are all used to stabilize blood pressure and thought explaining each one would go off topic. Hyperlinks to specific words still need to be put in as well as a final read through of the whole article before final submission. Npsar20 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsar20 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Npsar20 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RReilles24, Npsar20, KCole0034.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary Review By Johnmleclaire
My group encountered a similar problem to you guys in terms of the number of sources. You guys did a very nice job of summarizing the article in a way that is approachable to the casual observer. Something that could be useful is a diagram of the fluid leaks in the causes section. Since this is a unique topic that is unlikely to have relevant images in a google search, you guys should look for some relevant images or pictures in the papers you used to write the article. There is also some redundancy in the discussion of POTS in your causes and management section. Eliminating this or changing the working up a bit would be an improvement. The mechanism section seems like it could be combined with causes since there is more information in that section that is very relevant to both sections. Epidemiology could probably be combined with the diagnosis section for clarity. It also doesn't really stand on its own at the end of the article. Johnmleclaire (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review by Sand774823
Good introduction, but maybe you can elaborate more in the history of the condition if possible, and important discoveries that lead to finding the diagnosis of Orthostatic headache. In the mechanism section, maybe explain what a CSF leak a little bit more, as this part can help the reader understand how the buoyancy problems occurs. The causes section is done very well, you differentiated between disorders that cause Orthostatic headache, and explained each with good hyperlinks. There in discussing in what a Orthostatic headache is in the causes section, and mechanism. Maybe you could combine the mechanism section with the causes section to make it more concise. Consider also a symptoms section that you can combine the epidemiology section into, and this can help add some more content on the page. The management section is done very well, maybe add a sentence or two describing what the drug's do to the CF in the brain to manage the headache. In the outlook section consider maybe go into some depth into repairing the CSF leaks, either surgery or medication. The source I checked was the from the Neurology journal, and it seems like a very good secondary source, and widely credible as it is the official journal for the American Academy of Neurology. Overall the article is good, and I understand you have limited sources to work with, just add a bit more content and some pictures. Sand774823 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Sand774823 for your review! There isn't much about history and discoveries which we have found but we will keep looking.  But, we will try and go further into the CSF leak.  The causes and mechanisms are part of the medical article criteria so we will try and keep these separate. Thanks for your feedback. Npsar20 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary review by MecciaC0410
I think your group did well even though you couldn’t find many sources. Some suggestions I have would be to try to expand the introduction. You talk about increasing awareness of orthostatic headache. How do you increase awareness? Another suggestion would be to define more of the causes of orthostatic headache. Maybe have a quick sentence that says what cerebrospinal fluid is or what a post-Dural-puncture leak is. I know you guys linked to other wiki pages which is great, but I think it would be really helpful to your reader if there was a short definition in the text. My last suggestion would be to use less acronyms. As I was reading the article I had to look back a few times to see what some acronyms stood for. Maybe at least have the whole topic in every one of the sections? That way your reader will be a little more familiar with the topic and acronym. Overall, great job and I cant wait to see the finished product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MecciaC0410 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC) MecciaC0410 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
I understand that you could not find many resources for your topic - and taking this into account, I think you did a good job of gathering enough information for someone who does not know much about these topics. It was well written and concise. The introduction had just the right amount of information to give the reader a broad overview of what it is and what are the causes. Other sections were a little repetitive in how they were worded but that is an easy fix. I felt that maybe combining a few sections (like the causes and mechanisms) would make sense and allow for a better understanding of the article. Also, like Sand774823 mentioned, it would beneficial to add some history of the condition or even a few case studies or discoveries that led to what is known today on the topic.

I felt that there was enough broad coverage to get the article started, but they could definitely add more. Like I stated before, I understand the overarching ideas of what was said and it was easy to follow - but adding a few more details could help (including an image).

The article was neutral and the references were not difficult to link to the sections. I decided to look into the first article - which was, indeed, a secondary source. Based off of my findings, the group cited it correctly and used the information in a manner in which it contributed to the article (and was not simply added as random information).

Great job so far! Ksannch (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Ksannch


 * Thanks Ksannch for your review! We will work on our wording to reduce redundancy and confusion.  We haven't found much on the history of orthostatic headache.  Seeing that this is a medical article, we are following the criteria so we want to keep mechanism and causes separate.  Thank you for your idea of adding an image, we found a good one on wikimedia that shows where cerebrospinal fluid is in the brain.  We appreciate your feedback.Npsar20 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I thought your article was interesting and a good start! To include more helpful information in your article, I would suggest expanding on some of the keywords you included links to. I think it would be helpful to still have them linked, but also to include a sentence or two explaining what they are so readers don't have to go back and forth among several articles. Make sure there is not too much overlap in the sections. There was some with POTS in the Causes and the Diagnosis section. Including information about this is helpful in both sections, but just make sure it is not the same information twice. As people before have commented, I think it would add some substance to your article to include an example of a case study. I was really interested in this topic and was intrigued from the first sentence when you mentioned that the most common way to relieve Orthostatic headache is to lay down. EKallsen (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Xiaoyi Hou
The authors have done a good job summarizing facts about orthostatic headache based on a limited number of sources available out there. The article follows the style manual for Wikipedia articles. The article is informative since the authors cite many reputable secondary articles. The lead section is kind of short, maybe you could expand on what symptoms could be recognized to properly diagnose orthostatic headache. In the “Mechanism” section, the abbreviation “CSF” confuses me, since it does not appear before. I guess “CSF” is in short for “cerebrospinal fluid” (leak), right? I will suggest you to put the abbreviation in parentheses after the full name of the term for clarity. As mentioned by other reviewers, I think several sections could be combined together, including “Mechanism” and “Causes”, “Management” and “Outlook”. It may be difficult to find a relevant image for this topic, but perhaps you could find an image to illustrate cerebrospinal fluid flow. Besides the content, I realize some format issues. First, the spaces between sections are inconsistent, such as between “Diagnosis” and “Management,” which is easy to fix. Second, the 7th and 8th references are the same article, so this format should be fixed. As I said earlier, you have done a good job! I hope some of my suggestions could be useful to make your article even better.

Xiaoyi1991 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review by riesgraf.emily
The information available for orthostatic headache’s is limited and the article attempts to cover a broad spectrum in a neutral and stable way. The article could be edited to help with formality, clarity, and overall content.

The first paragraph feels too casual and misses out on the opportunity to provide a clear and informative introduction to the article following. To clarify the writing in the introduction I would suggest adding more clear description, rather than saying “…develops a headache while vertical and the headache is relieved when horizontal” the same statement could be made clearer by saying. “develops a headache while standing up and headache disappears when laying down on their back.” The next sentence could use clarification, which types of symptoms, causes, and diagnosis are you referring to?

The “causes” section could be expanded for greater clarity. The links are effective when they are clicked on, but without clicking on the links readers would not know what the page was referring to. I recommend elaborating on each of the highlighted links so that the readers can continue reading the paragraph for content without having to redirect to each page. The “diagnosis” section could benefit from images of healthy scans versus scans with CSF leaks so the reader can visually see how they are differentiated through these tests. The “management” section is confusing. The phrase “lots of hydration” in the first sentence could be changed to a quantifiable amount of ounces or glasses of water. The “outlook” section should include how a patients life may change after diagnosis and how long the medications must be taken for, the chances for relapse, and what it would look like if POTS did affect daily life. This article could benefit from images of test results, baroreflex pathways, or CSF location in the brain. Source number 6 includes a clearly labeled image of the baroreflex pathway that could help supplement in the “mechanism” section and provide additional ways of thinking about orthostatic headache’s for readers. Riesgraf.emily (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)riesgraf.emily


 * Thanks riesgraf.emily! We will clarify our writing by expanding on abbreviations and definitions.  To clarify on our first paragraph, we used the words horizontal and vertical to avoid plagiarism.  We will try to find a healthy vs weak CSF leak image of the brain.  For this disease, it is based on the individual how much water should be drank per day because it varies per person.  The outlook section is vague because management is very patient specific.  Thank you for your input!Npsar20 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

CSF Leak may be a lifetime problem
Authors may gain a better understanding by researching CSF leaks, which opens up the number of sources.

Once one does that, the idea that "most csf leaks heal" becomes problematic, as even doctors can not make that claim since the condition is not understood. A great many people struggle with CSF leaks for the rest of their lives. Many have reoccurences and many people struggle with repeated operations and blood patches. The issue is not as simple as the Wiki authors of this page are making it sound. If nothing else, this page should be rewritten to state that even doctors do not have all the answers for this condition, unless the wiki authors are honestly claiming they have more knowledge than the doctors and the patients online indicate.