Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us


Latest comments

Acknowledgement correction (Vitor E. Valenti, 09 September 2014)

The authors state that the study received financial support from Foundation of Support to Research of Sao Paulo State (FAPESP, process number 2013/24593-0). read full comment

Comment on: Breinis et al. BMC Neurology, 14:4

Modelling cost offsets in a vacuum of evidence can be a costly mistake. (Tracy Comans, 03 December 2013)

We commend the authors for a conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis in the treatment of Alzheimer¿s disease - there exists a definite need for such work. However, we wish to query the costing used in the discrete event simulation model and believe that apparent errors may have a significant impact on the reported results and ultimate... read full comment

Comment on: Hartz et al. BMC Neurology, 12:2

Sponsoring of Open Access Publication (Sonja Koerner, 26 September 2013)

Publication charges were supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG
in the framework of the program ¿Open Access Publishing¿ at Medizinische
Hochschule Hannover. read full comment

Comment on: Körner et al. BMC Neurology, 13:84

Authors reply to Dr Soumaoro Ibrahima (Espen Saxhaug Kristoffersen, 17 July 2013)

Dear Dr Soumaoro... read full comment

Comment on: Kristoffersen et al. BMC Neurology, 12:70

Medication Overuse Headache (MOH) definition (Ibrahima Soumaoro, 10 March 2013)

According to SD Silberstein et al. Cephalalgia 2005; 25:460¿465 (Revision-of-criteria-8.2-MOH) and ICDH-IIR, the diagnosis criteria for MOH are the... read full comment

Comment on: Kristoffersen et al. BMC Neurology, 12:70

Consideration in future researches (Mehdi Farhoudi, 10 March 2013)

Dear Dr. Soleimanpour,

Congratulations to you and your colleagues for publishing this innovative research paper in this professional journal. The article is great and I think all related limitations were mentioned. It seems that in this phase propofol should be used in emergency departments with monitoring facility and it is better to propose other study with solving of the limitations and considering cost-benefit issues.

Best Regards,
Mehdi Farhoudi
Prof. of Neurology read full comment

Comment on: Soleimanpour et al. BMC Neurology, 12:114

Comment on BMC Neurol 2012 12: 6 (Ulrik Dalgas, 18 June 2012)

Dalgas U, Kjoelhede T... read full comment

Comment on: Motl et al. BMC Neurology, 12:6

concern regarding a review published by Plested et al. 2010 on various medications for refractory neuropathic pain (Detlef von Zabern, 08 June 2012)

1. Definition of refractory neuropathic pain... read full comment

Comment on: Plested et al. BMC Neurology, 10:116

Errata for Coulthart et al., BMC Neurology 2011 Oct 27;11(1):133 (Michael Coulthart, 26 November 2011)

There are two typographical errors in the final published version of this paper, for which the corresponding author accepts full responsibility. Page references are to the final PDF version.

1. Page 6, first paragraph, line 7:

" ... result below T2.5 + T1000 ... " should read
" ... result below T2.5 + T976 ... ".

2. Table 3, lines 4 and 10:

"T1000" should read "T976".

M.B. Coulthart read full comment

Comment on: Coulthart et al. BMC Neurology, 11:133

Including insomniac/sleep deprevation patients in future studies? (John Mitchell jr, 08 July 2011)

One of the most distressing facets of CFS is the disrupted/interrupted sleep patterns experienced by many patients, which have a profound impact on quality of life. As a longtime CFS patient disrupted sleep was one of my first symptoms of illness, long before I became disabled due to cognitive dysfunction, weakness and post-exertional malaise, with the main problem being that I wake up from sleeping after a couple hours and then constantly awaken and try to go back to sleep for the rest of the night, every night. This has went on for the past decade, leaving me severely sleep deprived, and seems to fit with the reduced stage 4 sleep and alpha wave intrusion reported in several CFS sleep studies.

Although I am not educated on the techniques involved in this study, it would seem... read full comment

Comment on: Duffy et al. BMC Neurology, 11:82

Correction available (Otmar Bayer, 20 June 2011)

A correction to our article is available at read full comment

Comment on: Bayer et al. BMC Neurology, 10:98

Typographic errors in Manuscript (Maia Beridze, 31 May 2011)

There are several typographic errors in manuscript final version that are important to mention as they can distort the scientific essence of paper.

In Table 2- After: Data represents means (SD) should be indication * P<0.05.

In the legend of Figure 1
After: P < 0.05 between the Group 1, Group 2 and control
Should be : P < 0.50 between the Group 1 and Group 2

In the legend of Figure 2
Instead of :
P < 0.50 between the Group 1 and Group 2
Should be:
P < 0.05 between the Group 1 and Group 2

This is also obvious while looking at the figures.

Author of this comments: Maia Beridze MD.PhD. The first author of presented manuscript.
read full comment

Comment on: Beridze et al. BMC Neurology, 11:41

corrections (illora darbar, 31 May 2011)

On Table 2, last column: The correct is p>0.999, not p=0.999. The correct is p=0.153, not p=1.53. read full comment

Comment on: Darbar et al. BMC Neurology, 11:36

No association between celiac disease and multiple sclerosis in population-based data (Jonas Ludvigsson, 31 May 2011)

The authors are to be commended for their interesting study. At the same time I would like to draw their attention to the largest study on celiac disease and mutliple sclerosis to this date:
Ludvigsson JF, Olsson T, Ekbom A, Montgomery SM. A population-based study of coeliac disease, neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25(11):1317-27.

In this study we examined the risk of multiple sclerosis (and other neurological disorders) in 14,000 patients with celiac disease in Sweden. Patients with celiac disease were at no increased risk of MS (Hazard ratio, HR=0.9; 95%CI=0.3-2.3).

When in a case-control analysis we instead investigated the risk of a future celiac... read full comment

Comment on: Rodrigo et al. BMC Neurology, 11:31

Clarification of study codes (Edward Whitney, 23 December 2010)

Some clarification is needed. The pregabalin studies are referred to not by author but by a code. I am in possession of Rosenstock et al (reference #15), and I notice that it enrolled 76 patients on pregabalin 100 mg tid, with 70 patients on placebo. I infer that this is “DPN-131,” though I find this code nowhere in the Rosenstock article, nor do I find a key to the code on the website.
Can this be clarified?
read full comment

Comment on: Quilici et al. BMC Neurology, 9:6

Neuro developmental approach (Paule Morbois, 12 July 2010)

A few comments relevant to your article and per se your study of adult stroke patients.
The neurodevelopmental approach (Bobath) has for decades emphasized on purposeful activities for patients with spasticity or low muscle tones or fluctuating muscle tone. Where purposeful activities reinforce the willingness of patients to practice activities, enhancing the natural motor pathways in the brain and perhaps help developping the emergence of collateral pathways where the main motor pathways may have been damaged during the stroke.
This, however is not only confined to stroke patients but to everybody in life. If purposeless activities are presented to anyone, the reluctancy to practice any activity becomes obvious and no progress may be observed, including in the non stroke... read full comment

Comment on: van de Port et al. BMC Neurology, 9:43

CONSORT statement recommends sufficient details to allow replication (for nonpharmacologic treatments, the publishing of manuals is recommended) (Tom Kindlon, 09 July 2010)

The publishing of this trial protocol [1] is to be welcomed – it is something that the CONSORT statement on Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) recommends[2].

Item 5 of the checklist in the CONSORT guidelines [2] states the following information should be given: "The interventions for each group with sufficient details to allow replication, including how and when they were actually administered."

The explanation for this is given as [3]:
"Explanation—Authors should describe each intervention thoroughly, including control interventions. The description should allow a clinician wanting to use the intervention to know exactly how to administer the intervention that was evaluated in the trial.102 For a drug intervention, information would include... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

PACE Trial Strata Criteria (Peter Kemp, 09 July 2010)

For an overview of the pros and cons of Stratified Sampling see:

The PACE Trial Identifier indicated an intention to stratify participants by treatment centre. In the PACE Trail Protocol participants are stratified into those that meet Oxford, London or CDC criteria as well as those that have depression or not. These strata are divided between 4 treatment arms (APT, GET, CBT, Control group - Secondary Care).

Each strata is like a separate research project with a carefully defined and selected group of participants. One of the main advantages of using strata is that data should be matched to other strata; allowing accurate comparison. Unfortunately there are some disadvantages to this approach.

The reduced... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

Reply to misleading information A Kennedy 1st October 2008 (Ellen Goudsmit, 21 June 2010)

In her comment responding to an earlier contribution, Ms Kennedy repeated certain criticisms of the London Criteria for ME. As some of her statements suggested that I had been untruthful in my comment, I asked the editorial board to remove her response d.d. 1st October 2008 and when requested, sent them evidence to show that the London criteria had been used in research, that they were operationalised etc and that I had provided totally accurate information in my first comment. I also clarified that none of the criteria for CFS and ME had been 'validated' at the time of writing, ergo, Ms Kennedy seemed to require a higher standard for the LC than for other criteria.

Regretfully, the editors decided not to remove the disputed comment. This means that readers may be left... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

PACE Trial Strata Criteria (Peter Kemp, 12 May 2010)

PACE Trial Strata Criteria

The PACE Trial Identifier indicated an intention to stratify participants by treatment centre only. In the PACE Trail Protocol participants are stratified into those that meet Oxford, London or CDC criteria and these are also divided into those that have depression or not, creating 6 strata divided between four treatment arms (APT, GET, CBT, Secondary Care).

This reduced sample size in each strata/arm is susceptible to other problems due to the nature of the illnesses under study and the theories being tested. As the Wessely School have been at pains to point out over the years, fatigue and its resulting reduced activity can produce symptoms; some of which could match those required for different criteria. People at different stages of an... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

Risks of Participation in the PACE Trial (Peter Kemp, 12 May 2010)

The authors give mixed messages in the PACE Trial Protocol. On the one hand they claim:

“We will also carefully monitor all participants for any adverse effects of the treatments…”
(the results will) “provide evidence about the efficacy and adverse effects of the four treatments…”
“The individual treatment programmes used in PACE will minimise this risk by being mutually agreed between participant and therapist, carefully monitored and flexibly implemented…”

On the other hand they state:

“whereas the trial evidence suggests minimal or no risk with these treatments.”
“A risk assessment has been undertaken, and we have concluded that the therapies are of low risk to... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

Post Exertional Malaise and Recovery from Exercise (Peter Kemp, 12 May 2010)

The Chief Medical Officer’s working group report states: “One of the most common and characteristic complaints of adults, particularly in the early stages of the illness, is of intolerance to both physical and mental exertion with delayed impact. So perhaps the key pointer to a diagnosis of CFS/ME is the way in which the symptoms behave after increased activity.”

All 3 of the strata criteria for the PACE Trial include fatigue and symptoms following activity and the CDC criteria specifies fatigue, ‘‘is not substantially alleviated by rest” and “post-exertional malaise lasting more than 24 hours”, the latter being one of the multi-choice factors. There appears to be no mention of the delayed affects of effort which mean that people... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

New paper lists 3 CFS studies where there was no improvement in the actometer readings but an improvement was reported in subjective outcome measures (Tom Kindlon, 12 May 2010)

I know it might perhaps have seemed to some who have read these posts that I might be concerned about something that was not important (when I was calling for actometers to be used if possible for at least some of the patients at the end of the trial). So I feel "vindicated" in a way by a review[1] that has just been published. It found that in the three Dutch CFS trials looked at, studies which all found improvements in fatigue[2-4], there was no statistically significant increase in physical activity levels as measured by actometers.

The review also found that "changes in physical activity were not related to changes in fatigue."

The authors of the review (who include people who were involved in all the studies) say that, in the three studies... read full comment

Comment on: White et al. BMC Neurology, 7:6

Tolerability of cannabis extracts in multiple sclerosis (Magi Farre, 12 May 2010)

We have read with interest the manuscript of Lakhan and Rowland published in the journal [1] which reviewed the efficacy of cannabis extracts in the treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis. We want to add some information about the tolerability of cannabis extracts.
In our study we followed a similar methodology of a systematic review of published literature, selection and meta-analysis. The papers included in our study were the same six included by Lakhan and Rowland [2-7]. Data on adverse events, induced by combined Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) therapy in comparison to placebo, were extracted independently by the authors and any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Individual adverse events were included in the analysis if described with the... read full comment

Comment on: Lakhan et al. BMC Neurology, 9:59

Ultrasound criteria for carotid In-stent restenosis. (Gert Jan de Borst, 11 August 2009)

Duplex ultrasound (US) velocity criteria have not been well-established for follow-up of patients with carotid artery stents. Stent placement alters the biomechanical properties (increased elastic modulus, decreased compliance) of the stented artery. This may cause an increase in duplex-acquired velocity measurements in the absence of technical error, residual stenotic disease, or myointimal thickening in the stent [1,2]. Therefore, the potential risk of using the generally accepted duplex criteria for follow-up after CEA is an overestimation of the degree of restenosis after CAS. As Nederkoorn and Brown correctly state, the magnitude and significance of these alterations are ill-defined and emphasize the need to develop customized velocity criteria for se in patients with implanted stents.... read full comment

Comment on: Nederkoorn et al. BMC Neurology, 9:36