Open Access Biomedical Publisher Using Post Publication Peer Review
This report adds new information to the literature. It is an interesting topic.
It is succesful
This can be added into Conclusion: This Case Report is inconclusive, calling for more research with larger populations to determine whether or not oral dose Ubiquinol or Ubiquinone has any effect on energy performance.
Also, some of introduction can be moved to discussion.
I am experienced as a medicne doctor in oncology hospital.
As a case study, this paper is informative and well written, but just as also pointed out by the author, the study is not conclusive with its current setting. A more carefully design with statistical power is necessary for the further research examining exogenous Coenzyme Q10 dose effects.
Dear Dr. Misner:
I found your new manuscript now acceptable. You work hard to get a better manuscript. I think with time you will build an acceptable protocol to get better data on the use of this enzyme.
Dr. Constantino Ledesma-Montes.
I read your new manuscript and found it more acceptable, unfortunately it is a one case series, but you have contact with this kind of patiens and have the opportunity to build a well-done protocol in the future. I thing you will be succsessful with your work.
Dr. Consatntino Ledesma-Montes.
You are reporting an interesting case about a previously unexplored effect of coenzime Q10. I'm concerned with the magnitude of the effect. I doesn't seem that a ±2% variation in performance with treatments is significant enough to warrant further research.
Additionally, why did you chose a 14-d wash out period? coenzime Q10 biological effects may last longer.
I'm a pharmacoepidemiologist with expertise in medical physiology.
This is a very interesting, meticulously written article. However, I do have some points to make regarding the structure and overall readability and organization of the manuscript. (Note that this is me attempting to help turn a fascinating scientific study into a well-written and excellently presented article).
In the introduction, there is quite a lot of repetition (esp. concerning the absorbance of Ubiquinone and Ubiquinol). There is a list, followed by paragraphs comparing the two - in some places this can sound redundant. The order followed in the introduction, beginning with comparing the two forms and THEN mentioning the functions of Coenzyme Q10 endogenously seems inappropriate. Starting broader by talking about CQ10 first (functions, nature, etc) and then it's forms and the differences between them would make it much more readable.
The terms ''Not-healthy'' and ''healthy'' are inappropriate to describe high and low-fat foods respectively - they are not synonymous.
The first sentence in the Methods section should be included in the introduction. A justification (or an attempt at one) for specifically selecting a 14-day washout period would also improve this section.
The discussion should be before the conclusion, and more emphasis should be placed on comparing the results with other similar studies (in animals or humans) in the discussion. The discussion should be based on sentences such as ''Because aging and exercise create a deficiency ... etc'' rather than simply state facts about CoQ10 as has been done in the beginning of the discussion - most of this information would be better placed in the introduction. Otherwise, correlates between these facts and the results of the study should be considered.
In this revised form, the author greatly improved his ms. I suggest to move the Discussion section before the Conclusions one
It is an important case report
I am concerned with nutritional facts and aging.
The article has made a good correlation between coenzyme Q10 and food. It adds up to the present knowldege and hence can be accepted.
I was also involved in clinical trials and case studies concerned to novel drug delivery systems
a very informative paper which is contributing the research on Coenzyme Q10 its presence and absence related to food and how essential for day to day life and it is related to cardiac diseases which are epidemic underway so the report is very much important in current science for corelation between antioxidant, degenerative diseases and cardiovascular diseases.
No, not exactly as i am working on Indian Medicinal Plants and their biopotentials so indirectly related to these diseases to cure them by various herbs.
This article has been extensively revised in response to reviews of the previous version. It reads much better now, although the organization is still somewhat awkward (Conclusion before discussion, some parts of the discussion would be more appropriate in the introduction and visa versa).
The author now clearly describes the findings as interesting without drawing any conclusions. I agree that further research with more subjects (and blinding of investigator/subject) would be worthwhile.
Experienced runner (have completed > 30 marathons)
A study where the subject was blinded to the intervention would have improved its validity.
It willalso be useful to report the variance in running time in the different attempts with each of the interventions. Statistical significance can then be tested.
No experience in this specific area of science
This version is much better than the first. My main criticism still has not been answered: data is presented as the best time in each category, instead of the mean and standard deviation in each group. It would be interesting to see if, when presented in this manner, the same conclusions could be made.
Professor of Medicine, Specialist in Endocrinology and Metabolism
You did well to change from case study to report. Your last setence in Conclusion section says it all. That sentence already takes care of the limitations inherent in the report. I think there is serious need to conduct this study on a wider scale or like you said for all ages then the results generated hereafter would have either helped to substatiate the present study's effectiveness or otherwise.
very exciting and challenging
In this single case study, the authors reported the effect of Ubiquinone on performance of 71 years old male subject. This observation is of great interest but still some questions remain to be answered before going to large clinical studies.
This article is well designed and written however two points should be taken into consideration: 1) the introduction is too long and is not focused on previous studies. 2) the discussion appear particularly weak and seems a repetition of the Introduction.
Introduction is too long. It is better to be shortened for scientific purpose.
Other sections are well written and adequate.
The reviewer has no big problems with the manuscript. It seems correctly designed and well done experiment showing new interesting data. Discussion is rather comprehensive.
-The Author has mentioned as Ubiquinone and/or Ubiquinol play an important role regenerating two internal antioxidants, vitamin E and vitamin C. But the none of the antioxidants was measured- Justify
now, i think this article is presented well.
experience in muscle force and bone strenth research
Single-case studies are always welcome before conducting “real” ones (clinical trials, follow-up studies, on similar), because we learn not only about possible/desirable outcomes, but moreover about all possible mistakes, obstacles, and difficulties to avoid later. This study is of significant importance considering that it brings new perspectives on researching Ubiquinol or Ubiquinone and anaerobic exercising, but I feel that the author encountered some difficulties, he needs to avoid in a later project. I think that the issues arose during the study are of greater importance than technical ones with its presentation.
I have experiance in physical activities in epilepsy, but none in this field.
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.
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