Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33821382›Full record

ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2021

The Litigation Complexity of Posttraumatic Headaches.

Jack E Hubbard, Samuel D Hodge

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jack E HubbardUniversity of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, USA. jackhubb@comcast.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2172-1985
Samuel D HodgeTemple University Fox School of Business and the Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Temple University · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review explores the workings of the legal process in posttraumatic headache (PTH) claims by discussing representative court cases, the approaches taken by both plaintiff and defense attorneys in evaluating a client with PTH, and the role of the expert witness. This discussion also examines the question of whether or not litigation prolongs the symptoms of PTH and concussion, looking at the issues of malingering and the psychological effect of litigation. RECENT

findingsLitigation prolongs recovery of PTH, primarily not from malingering but rather due to the psychological mindset of the plaintiff as created by the litigation process. Just as the medical community struggles with PTH diagnosis, mechanism, and treatment, the legal system grapples with identifying valid claims for PTH. Psychological support is an important component for PTH recovery to more effectively deal with the psychological impact of litigation and the concept of perceived injustice.

Indexed as

JurisprudenceMalingeringPost-Concussion SyndromeExpert TestimonyHeadacheHumansConcussionHeadacheLitigationMedical-legalPosttraumatic

Identifiers

PMID33821382
OpenAlexW3146348112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.