ReviewDer Nervenarzt2024
[Henry Head (1861-1940) and his importance for neurology].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, Henry Head is best known for his Head zones. The concept was understood very differently by Head in comparison to what current medical books falsely describe them to be. In reality, there is no direct relationship between one particular skin zone and one single organ. It is certain that the drawings considered depictions of the Head zones in today's medical textbooks were actually not created by Head. From a neurological point of view, Head is important for two reasons: his self-experiment in 1909 to damage one of his own peripheral nerves followed by regeneration was heroic. It has helped generations of neurologists to have a better understanding of the pathophysiology of peripheral nerve damage and thus make a better assessment of the prognosis of such injuries. Head's second contribution pertains to the radicular organization at the level of the spinal cord. The pathophysiology of herpes zoster radiculitis enabled him to develop the concept of the dermatomes on the basis of preliminary work around 1900. Henry Head's contribution was the systematic compilation of the existing publications of the time and amendment of his own cases. As he was the most important neurologist at that time, at least in the English speaking world, and was well connected with people in the German neurology community, it was probably easy for him to make his dermatome maps well known. In retrospect, Head was less successful in neuropsychology with holistic concepts for higher cognitive functions which were in vogue during his lifetime. His late work on aphasia is now considered refuted. Head's criticism of the strict localization was well in syncronization with the zeitgeist of the early twentieth century. Establishing the fact that Broca's aphasia and Wernicke's aphasia are not easily diagnostically distinguishable from each other was more an achievement of subsequent generations of neurologists and neuropsychologists as well as technical advances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.