Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 12th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 16th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 4th, 2016 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on March 15th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 22nd, 2016.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revised manuscript which will be accepted for publication in PeerJ.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors, This manuscript is nearly ready to be accepted after you repair the minor statistical statements in your text as suggested by our statistical reviewer.

·

Basic reporting

Authors have corrected accordingly:

A few minor corrections are needed as follows (but no need for further review):

1)
Table 1:
Remove +/- as mentioned earlier
Correct for the last row: Mean age in Year (SD)
(Unit of the age or numerical variables cannot be missed in the table. Tables need to be stand-alone. Explanation in tables on acronyms or units need to be completed by itself in the tables so that readers do not need to refer to text)

2)
In both text (in Results) and Table 2 (Second column), please called it "absolute agreement" instead of "agreement" (so that it is a specific term to differentiate from Kappa (because kappa is also a kind of agreement).

3)
Please remove "-" between two numbers (but it is OK to have "-" between two words). It is not a good practice as a dash between two numbers or infront of a number could be mistaken with a negative or minus sign. PLEASE CORRECT IN THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT. An example is given below:

"The test-retest study showed substantial agreement between test and retest in the headache, migraine and MOH domains (agreement = 76.9-96.2% and kappa = 0.65-0.78). The sections of the questionnaire referring to time, indicated almost perfect agreement. ICC 0.85 (95%CI: 0.67-0.93)"

Simply write as follows:
"The test-retest study showed substantial agreement between test and retest in the headache, migraine and MOH domains (agreement = 76.9 to 96.2% and kappa = 0.65 to 0.78). The sections of the questionnaire referring to time, indicated almost perfect agreement. ICC 0.85 (95%CI: 0.67, 0.93)"
* For 95% CI, we suppose to use "comma" between two values.

Thanks.

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Comments for the author

Thank you.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors, There are major statistical issues raised by reviewer 3 that needs to be looked into seriously. Please place importance to this as it is an important component of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

This paer is well written, clear and straight forward.
There is a typping error in line 61. Otherwise I have know comments

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

This is an important study in an area of translation and validation of the Child and Adolescent HARDSHIP (Headache-attributed restriction, disability, social handicap and impaired participation) questionnaire even though the diagnosis validation migraine, tension-type headache and medication overuse headache had not done.
I have some comments.
1. In the title, there would be better to add Danish language at end of the title.
2. If it is not policy of journal, I would like to suggest deleting the discussion part in abstract but add the conclusion in abstract.
3. Add citation for “The prevalence of headache in children and adolescents varies considerably. The prevalence of migraine is between 3% and 11% while the prevalence of tension headache ranges from 10% to 24% “in the second paragraph of the introduction section.
4, I) I would suggest to improve the presentation of data on table 1.
II) Is there any value after 10. in 6th row and fifth column of table no 1?. If not please make consistency with other values

·

Basic reporting

Major point:
1)
Authors have used kappa statistics.
kappa statistics is appropriate for agreement for categorical outcome.
It was not clear in the manuscript that how categorical outcome were achieved.
E.g. from screening Q4-5 (if it 4 and 5, please write Q4&5), how the categories are derived? What categories? How many categories? It should be clear in the methods and also in the data presentation.
In Table 2, there should be n and % of each categories for test and retest (description statistics) then include kappa statistics. Agreement percent is necessary. Pearson correlation is also totally irrelevant if the authors are handling categorical variables. Pearson correlation is for correlation between two numerical variables.

In case of numerical variables, test-retest reliability must be analysed and presented with Intra-class correlation (instead of Pearson's correlation).

2)
Table 1 should be simple description of study sample.
Why it is necessary to present two columns (for age two groups) for pilot and think aloud study but not for test-retest (combined age)? Any reason!!
If there is no reason, all should be combined like test-retest.
Readers would like to know counts and percentages (currently only the counts are presented)

3) Authors have submitted two set of questionnaires. One for age between 6 to 11 and one for 12 to 17. Please describe what the differences between two sets are. If they are different, the whole analyses should be two sets.
It cannot be combined as in Table 2.


Minor points:
1)
Please do not leave a space between the number and % (percent sign).
e.g. it should be 22% rather than 22 %

2)
Please remove +/- sign from everywhere as it doesn't mean for it.
10+/-2 means "8 and 12". If you do not mean for it, please do not use.

3)
Finding of Line 236 to 241 should be presented in a table.

End.

Experimental design

Not relevant

Validity of the findings

It is just a pilot study with a small sample size and therefore, validity of the results is reasonably low quality.

Comments for the author

It is an interesting and useful study.
But at this stage, it was not sure that appropriate analyses were used (is it numerical or categorical outcome from the questionnaire) as the presentation is unclear.
kappa is for categorical outcome but how categorical outcome is achieved by this questionnaire, remains unclear.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.