"As for conclusions they are only saying this unexpected finding deserves further consideration."
This thing exudes unwarranted conclusions and bias.
Note, for just one example, they are saying that dex/quin deserves "consideration for "management" of various neuropsychiatric behaviors associated with TBI" This is an unwarranted conclusion based on really poor "'data".
Consideration of a Phase1/small Phase 2 study would be okay, but consideration for management is nonsensical given the extemely poor quality of the data presented.
They say the "results" highlight dex/quin as potent pharmacotherapy for various neuropsychiatric behaviors secondary to TBI" I'm sorry, but this statement is just an affront and shows how biased they are. They seriously underestimate their audience.
These 12 retrospective cases don't "support" any "hypothesis" about expanding the definition of PBA. This is really unscientific and inappropriate, in my opinion.
"The results of this case-series highlight DMQ as a potent pharmacotherapy for various neuropsychiatric behaviors secondary to TBI, including PBA. Treatment of PBA with DMQ in all 12 patients had the unexpected, salubrious benefit of decreasing the frequency of compulsive shopping behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: DMQ deserves consideration for the management of various neuropsychiatric behaviors associated with TBI, including PBA and impulsivity. Initiation of DMQ therapy holds the promise to significantly enhance the quality of life for individuals with PBA and poor impulse control. The co-occurring inhibition of compulsive shopping behaviors in this sample further supports a recently suggested hypothesis that the operational definition of PBA secondary to TBI be expanded to formally acknowledge the primary impairment of impulse control within which these episodes of affective lability frequently occur."
The scientific method requires formation of hypotheses based on observations. Those hypotheses are then experimentally tested. The present study includes relevant observations that absolutely support a hypothesis that PBA may be a wider spectrum of disorders. Not sure why you'd call this aspect unscientific.
Otherwise, as I agreed in my last post there is a positive bias. Clearly saying "highlight DMQ as a potent pharmacotherapy" is overstepping their results.
The "deserves consideration for the management" is (probably purposefully) ambiguous. It could mean that the hypothesis should be tested and I'd agree. It could be a suggestion to use it off-label which would be unjustified.