-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Epidemiology, challenges and management of drug-resistant systemic fungal infections.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes. However, authors have not included recent research and review articles.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Not applicable
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
Not applicable
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Not applicable
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
Authors should cite the recent papers as well.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
No. It is an average review. I could see sections in which authors have used the practice "Touch and Go" (for example Crypotcoccosis section) instead of discussing it deeper.
-
Other Comments:
None
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Gupta, R. and Prasad, Y. (2011a) 'Efficacy of polyvalent bacteriophage P-27/HP to control multidrug resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with human infections', Curr Microbiol 62(1): 255-60. Gupta, R. and Prasad, Y. (2011b) 'P-27/HP endolysin as antibacterial agent for antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus aureus of human infections', Curr Microbiol 63(1): 39-45.
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Gupta R .An Overview of Changing trends in Systemic Fungal Infections[Review of the article 'An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections ' by Ranganathan R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001920
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The main claims of the review are to identify changes of trends in different aspects of systemic fungal infections depending on an etiological agent of infection
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
No
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
I think more references should be added from 2005 to present time. I did not find any reference after 2008, this gap must be filled.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
After making all necessary corrections the paper might be outstanding.
-
Other Comments:
A table summarizing the most important trends would improve the manuscript.
A chart on epidemiological changes would also be useful, and more detail analysis of epidemiological changes is necessary, it is done rather superficially for some infections, for example for Cryptosporidiosis. Section for Cryptosporidiosis should be discusses deeply.
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
8 years - How to cite: Kon K .An overview of changing trends in systemic fungal infections[Review of the article 'An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections ' by Ranganathan R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001917
-
Other Comments:
1-Revision of references is required.
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
2001- 2012 in Microbiology field
- How to cite: Enany S .An overview of changing trends in systemic fungal infections.[Review of the article 'An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections ' by Ranganathan R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001826
Previous Version:
An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections
-
Other Comments:
Author have suggested a good strategy to compile literature. But references are missing only 39 have been mentioned which have latest from 2008. The author has mentioned 4 databases name but in flowchat (illustration) only three has been indicated. Author have missed to show number of papers read by them from each databases. The study require thorough rigrous analysis of data collected which should be latest (i.e. from 2008-2012).
-
Competing interests:
Nil
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
2 year
- How to cite: Kumar A .An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections[Review of the article 'An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections ' by Ranganathan R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001824
-
Other Comments:
1. There are typographical errors.
2. It is mentioned that relevant English-languaje articles were identified (2005-2011), but needed references 2009-2010.
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
I have worked for 20 years in the Microbiology Laboratory. - How to cite: Garcia G .An overview of changing trends in systemic fungal infections. [Review of the article 'An Overview of Changing Trends in Systemic Fungal Infections ' by Ranganathan R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001816
looks confused
discussion looks irrelavent to title
In appropriate literature review
NA
NA
NO
NA
NO
Back ground: Line 3 therapeutic technologies should be replaced as therapeutic interventions
Back ground: Line 4 In intensive care units only… this should be addressed
Methods: Line 6 I think case reports are important to find predisposing factors for systemic fungal infections
Results : Candida albicans may be decreasing in frequency, the number of persons at risk for them continues to grow should cite reasons
Introduction: You topic was on invasive systemic fungal infections and you have ignore the most common among them Cryptococcus..Needs revision
Cryptococcosis: Line 9 : Among HIV-infected persons, the rate was 95 per 100,000 and among persons living with AIDS, 14 per 1000 [33]… unclear
Changes in medical practice its impact: the whole paragraph is very poorly written.
Authors should know that Invasive fungi are different and Invasive opportunistic fungi are another group
In conclusion the authors used words like undiagnosed and under reported : undiagnosed I believe no But many case are just treated and not reported
Over all the idea of writing a review on Systemic fungal infection is good but the way paper was written is very poor
NONE
No
No
None
Microbiologist