Open Access Biomedical Publisher Using Post Publication Peer Review
Clinical trials on single subjects are helpful before actually proceeding with case control studies on a larger samples. In relation to the present study, I suggest the following:
1. A placebo drug could have been tried on an age matched control after assessing the fitness.
2. Double blinding would have erradicated bias.
3. The placebo could have been tried on the same case subject between the phases, with wash out periods between each phase.
4. A case control study with larger sample size is welcome as the results are promising.
The reviews are posted to strenthen the article and the study.
I believe that the author should increase control and case group subjects. Despite being a case report the aim of this paper is greater than this.
The discussion and conclusion need to be more detailed.
I am a professor of medicine with a nutritional teaching backgound
Reference section has been added; references are appropriate for the article.
Regarding the statement in the abstract "For these results for one subject male 71-years to be conclusive the trend should further confirmed or denied by examining dose and performances associated from a larger contingent of male and female runners over age 40", wording implies that a trend was observed. It is not appropriate to refer to results from a single subject as a "trend."
The information preceding the Methods section would be better titled "Introduction."
There should be a "Discussion" section following the results. It would be useful to include some of the comments that have been included in the author's responses to the reviews.
Experienced runner (have completed > 30 marathons)
The paper is well written. The study is well planned. Addition of little more discussions would make this paper still better.
I was also involved in clinical trials and case studies concerned to novel drug delivery systems.
It is difficult to draw conclusions from the way this data data was presented. The statistical tests carried out to determine significance were not stated. The use of percentages alone can be very deceptive in arriving at scientific conclusions. And the discussions should come after the results.
I have geriatric patients in the intensive care on ubiquinone therapy from their physician. The marginal benefit of this drug is still not very clear
author must increase control and case group subjects. without increasing subjects author can not reach at any conclusion as happen in this study. discussion and conclusion need to described in detail.
experienced in muscular movements and physiology
This is a trial with N=1, a single subject. No conclusions can be made from the data presented.
There are references within the body of the article, but no section at the end of the paper for listed references.
There are conclusions presented in the abstract, but no section for conclusions following the results. Further, the section labeled "Discussion" is actually an introduction.
The data presented do not support the conclusions. It would have been useful to see the actual times for each run in each of the three categories. Running times should have been presented as the mean and SD of each category, and not as the best time in each category.
the structure of a standard paper contains the Discussion at the end, not prior to Methods and Results.
Professsor of medicine, specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology and metabolism
This case study is well documented and the manuscript is well-written and provides a thorough introduction and background. Suggest adding a few comments after the Results section to conclude and discuss implications and suggestions.
Background in kinesiology and nutrition and former marathon runner.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution License