Notice: Undefined offset: 415 in /var/www/ on line 5961
Talk:Cataplexy - Scholarpedia


From Scholarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

    Review of “Cataplexy”, written by Dr. Michelle Cao and Dr. Christian Guilleminault.

    General Comments: This is a short and concise review of cataplexy. Cataplexy is fairly well understood and described in the sleep literature, but may not be outside of this specific realm, therefore, the possibility of this topic reaching broader audiences is of importance. This article is not necessarily well focused on cataplexy, but more so on narcolepsy with cataplexy. It might be beneficial to the authors to revise the introduction so that is matches the body of work more precisely. This reviewer has several concerns with this article that are strongly recommended to be fixed before publication.

    Overall main concerns 1. Throughout the entire article the grammar is poor and many misspellings are apparent. Cataplexy is spelled wrong on p4 in the ”treatment” section. If English is not the author’s primary language it would be beneficial to have it proofread by a native speaker. This task alone would likely improve the readability of this article tremendously. 2. The organization is often quite confusing. Several topics are discussed with tangential ideas. Most apparent is the “clinical features” section p 1-2. Cataplexy is briefly described along with literature. Then it goes on to say that cataplexy is “easily recognizable when clinical features are typical…” What does this mean? It seems like it should be a new paragraph. It is a big jump for the reader. As with the previous comment, it would improve the flow considerably if it was proofread. 3. CITATIONS: Many are missing from the text and those that are inserted are improper format. If this is to be read by scholars from all different disciplines or even laypeople, the data that are discussed should be referenced correctly. 4. Hypocretin/orexin section: Given that this article focuses on cataplexy, the authors should examine more closely the neurobiology of hypocretin loss as it relates to cataplexy. The finding from the Stanford group identified its absence in narcoleptics with cataplexy. A more thorough discussion of the literature as to how this neuropeptide is associated with cataplexy would be quite useful. Otherwise, this section is not all that relevant for this article. 5. Similar concerns should be applied to the “treatment” section. Much of the discussion flips between narcolepsy symptom treatment and cataplexy in particular. Make clear for the readers how and which treatments are most important to cataplexy. Also do these treatments work in secondary cataplexy? That section is poorly organized and left this reviewer more confused after reading it.

    Personal tools

    Focal areas