From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Information from this article appears on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section.[edit]

The e in headache is missing from the article URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


I need to access doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70062-0 before being able to use it as a source for headache epidemiology; currently the sources are weak. JFW | T@lk 11:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

UCSF peer feedback[edit]

Overall, I think the article is very informational and well-organized. The intro is straightforward, simple, and a good introduction to the topic. I also like the way the classification is written out. I just have a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

  • Under the "primary headaches", it might be nice to define what makes a headache a primary headache (I think a good definition was provided under the "Classification-NIH" subsection and read: "...primary headaches are those that do not show organic or structural etiology").
  • Overall, the causes section is well laid out and easy to read.
  • In the "pathophysiology" section, might be nice to provide a link to or define "nociceptors" in the first paragraph. Also, I'm not sure that the last paragraph in this section is so helpful, as it seems lacking in details the way it is. However, I do not have any specific suggestions as to how to change it.
  • In the "imaging" subsection under "diagnosis", I am wondering if MRI should be discussed at all. My headache knowledge isn't what it should be, but it seems like MRI might be another type of imaging that warrants discussion in its relation to diagnosing severe or new-onset headaches.
  • The treatment section looks like it could use some reorganization (maybe start with the most common therapies) as well as some discussion on common abortive treatments.
  • The epidemiology section is great.

As I mentioned earlier, I really like the article and I think just a few tweaks would make it that much better. Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmcUCSF2014 (talkcontribs) 15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


As written the epidemiology in adults directly contradicts the epidemiology in children. "Approximately 64–77% of people have a headache at some point in their lives." Whereas the children section report that 90% of children have had a headache by age 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by‎ (talkcontribs)

The statistics were based on a single country's experience. I have removed this as it cannot necessarily be generalised to other populations.
In general, the section needs integrating with the remainder of the article and updating with modern sources. Recent reviews include doi:10.1542/pir.33-12-562 (cannot access fulltext) and doi:10.1055/s-0032-1332743. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why does "encephalalgia" redirect here?[edit]

The article only mentions "cephalalgia". What is the diff? (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)