User:Umc1640F/Phantom pain/Psyched 2024 Peer Review

Peer Review
Hello! I think you did a really great job working on this article. As a whole, you achieved your edits and made the article flow really well. Below, I've listed some small edits/suggestions that I found along the way while reading. It looks like a lot, but I copied over quotes from the article to make it easier for you to locate!


 * In Pathophysiology Section: These few sentences aren’t quite clear because there’s a lot of “this” used and the sentences are pretty general, forcing the reader to come to a conclusion that isn’t clearly stated. I understood what it was saying after a couple of reads, but it wasn’t clear like the other sections: “This is because patients with congenital limb deficiency can sometimes, although much less frequently, experience phantom pains.[15] This suggests that there is also a central representation of the limb responsible for generating painful sensations.[17] Currently, theories are based on altered neurological pathways within the peripheral nervous system and spinal cord, as well as cortical reorganization within the brain.”
 * In Spinal mechanisms Section: I think this would be a good place to put in a general picture of a spinal cord with the horns or, if possible, a depiction of a normal pain response through the spinal cord
 * In central mechanisms section: Should this say lost limb? “…and primary motor cortices representing the loss limb…”
 * Diagnosis: If possible, I would add another source or 2 for the diagnostic section. Last sentence of the paragraph also needs a citation. Otherwise, well written.
 * Management: Citations missing after claims (ex: first paragraph). Similar to above, if possible, add a couple more sources. Otherwise, well written.
 * Mirror Therapy Section: Maybe paraphrase the following quote: “‘Research evidence suggests that a course of treatment (four weeks) of mirror therapy may reduce chronic pain. Contraindications and side effects are few. The mechanism of action of mirror therapy remains uncertain, with reintegration of motor and sensory systems, restored body image and control over fear-avoidance likely to influence outcome. The evidence for clinical efficacy of mirror therapy is encouraging, but not yet definitive. Nevertheless, mirror therapy is inexpensive, safe and easy for the patient to self-administer.’”
 * Same as above with this quote: “‘From these 15 studies, the reviewers concluded that "MT seems to be effective in relieving PLP, reducing the intensity and duration of daily pain episodes. It is a valid, simple, and inexpensive treatment for PLP.’”
 * Deep Brain Stimulation: Are there meta-analyses or systemic reviews on this? If so, I’d include that over the description of a singular study; however, if not, disregard.- Psyched 2024 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)