PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8500144

Reliability in headache diagnosis.

R B Lipton·W F Stewart·K R Merikangas
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The reliability of headache diagnosis using the criteria of the International Headache Society (IHS) has not been well studied. One definition of reliability refers to the reproducibility of diagnoses assigned to the same individual at different times. Reproducibility of diagnosis should be assessed using different clinicians at different times, with or without specific diagnostic instruments. A diagnosis may be unreliable because of variability in diagnostic criteria, in the clinical information used to assign diagnoses, or in the interpretation and application of clinical information to a given set of diagnostic criteria. Reliable diagnostic methods are essential to the development of valid diagnostic methods, as well as for the identification of headache risk factors, biological markers, and effective treatments. An approach to studying the reliability of the International Headache Society criteria is outlined, modeled after the extensive studies conducted in the area of psychiatric diagnosis.

Explore related subjects

Evaluation Studies as TopicHeadacheHumansInterviews as TopicNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Observer VariationReproducibility of ResultsSocieties, MedicalUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R B Lipton, W F Stewart, K R Merikangas. 1993. Reliability in headache diagnosis.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0333102493013s1207

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Complex adaptive systems: a response to Luchins.

Luchins (2003, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 31(2), 183-186) distinguishes the mutual strengths and shortcomings of qualitative and quantitative approaches as applied to the complexities of evaluation psychiatric hospital functioning in particular, and behavioral healthcare practice in general. This brief response offers an examination of the complex interplay of factors within non-linear models in a conceptualization of complex adaptive systems for understanding causal factors in mental health administration as well as calling into question the myth of the relationship between measurement and hence control and understanding and prediction.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2007

In search of a familial cancer risk assessment tool.

Approximately one in three individuals will be affected by cancer in their lifetime in the United States, and some are at elevated risk because of family history. Although assessment of family history of cancer and cancer risk is the standard of care, the current health-care system appears unable to meet this need. Because individuals are increasingly using the Internet, web-based cancer risk assessment tools (CRATs) may provide a way to meet this need. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the types of familial CRATs available on the Internet and their nature. The current review evaluated five CRATs identified through an Internet search based on (i) their ability to identify those at the highest risk of cancer (i.e. those with hereditary cancer syndromes), (ii) their strengths and limitations based on criteria adapted from Rich and colleagues (2004, 2005), (iii) their readability based on four readability calculations, and (iv) their quality based on criteria from Health on the Net. The general limitations of CRATs as a whole were also delineated, including concerns about availability to those who are poor and underserved and those who have lower levels of literacy. Recommendations for future tools include assessing risk for a greater number of diseases, using theoretically driven approaches to increase the likelihood that individuals will engage in appropriate health behaviors, and making a greater effort to reach diverse populations.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2007

Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research.

The overall aim of this study was to contribute to the development of metasynthesis through an analysis of the challenges involved. The study grew out of the critique of qualitative metaresearch raised by current developers of metamethodologies. Different views on the application of methodologies have emerged in the literature, contributing to confusion and ambiguity concerning the challenging questions of what, why, how, and who in metasynthesis research, which might increase the risk of misunderstanding. The roots of metasynthesis research are seen as multifaceted and influencing the development of the methods in different directions. The primary worth of metasynthesis is theoretical and/or methodological development (synthesis) combined with the potential for reflection: going beyond and behind the studies (meta). Metasynthesis research has also the potential to raise questions of research collaboration, culture, and language.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗