Submited on: 05 Aug 2012 04:46:02 PM GMT
Published on: 06 Aug 2012 05:07:32 PM GMT
 
Oral Cancer in the Indian Subcontinent
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 27 Sep 2012 05:41:50 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The purpose of this article is to review the current prevalence and risk factors for oral carcinoma across the Indian subcontinent.


  • 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.  The authors back up their claims with making very sound recommendations as to how to lower the risk for oral cancer.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes.  The authors do an excellent job of going through the various risk factors associated with oral cancer


  • 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?

    Yes


  • 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?

    No


  • 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?

    Yes, This would be a great seminar presentation at a dental school.


  • Other Comments:

    Oral cancer is increasing in the Indian subcontinent.  There are many factors which have caused this increase in oral cancer.  Human papilloma virus is a known risk factor for oral cancer.  This article gives recommendations to decrease oral cancer in the Indian subcontinent.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Clinical associate professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.Oral Cancer in the Indian Subcontinent[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002257
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To review the current prevalence and risk factors for oral carcinoma across the Indian subcontinent. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. But it is a good review


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    No


  • 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?

    Yes. It  adds knowledge to improve the prevention programs for Indian people.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    I am an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .Review of the Manuscript. An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002247
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The claims are the epidemiologic approach of this type of cancer in India and it is very important for all the world.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes these are novel claims


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes. The methodlogy was perfect


  • 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 these could be a par t of a bigger project to expand to other types of cancer.


  • 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?

    These paper is outstanding in its field and may be incorporated in all kind of meetings.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    I have a master degree and a doctorate degree in skin cancer

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinental and Recommendatios to Decrease its Incidence[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002183
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
This is not a review but a policy document.
Posted by Dr. Justin Fendos on 10 Aug 2012 01:57:38 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The article is presented as if it is a review but is in fact a policy document outlining strategy for dealing with oral cancer on the Indian subcontinent. I am concerned that the authors of this document may have posted their article to get free editorial feedback and so will keep my comments to a minimum as I see this as a misuse of this space.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The biggest problem with this document, even if were to be accepted as a true review, is that it quotes many figures without providing clear references. For a review of this length, the number of references in total also leaves much to be desired.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Not adequately.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    More references should be used.


  • 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?

    This is not an original research work.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    This is not an original research work.


  • 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?

    Providing additional references would definitely strengthen the work but would not change the fact that it is not a true review.


  • 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.


  • Other Comments:

    I fear the authors have misused this space to get free editorial advice.

  • 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:

    I have worked extensively on cancer biology.

  • How to cite:  Fendos J .This is not a review but a policy document.[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002177
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To have an overview of oral cancer in indian subcontinent & propose recommendations to decrease its incidence the claims are very important.


  • 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?

    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?

    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 would like to first congratulate the author for his nice attempt to have an overview on this vast topic. However i have observed few things which if included will make this article a complete review.

    1. The correct title should be oro-pharyngeal cancer instead of oral cancer.
    2. The clinical features should be mentioned in details.
    3. Terms like toungue problems should be avoided & actual problem should be mentioned in details.
    4. The risk factors need to be addressed in depth
    5. Reverse smoking is commonly observed in india which is commoner in india.
    6. There is field change in this cancer which actually predicts the outcome.
    7. Unless the detail etio-patho-physiology is studied & put, it is very difficult to plan preventive measures for this vast entity.
    8. Role of screening should be addressed & emphasized.
    9. An overview can not be complete without a mention on various treatment options for this cancer.
    10. The future recommenation should be to mentain a comprehensive cancer registry in south-east asia or indian subcontinent.


  • 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 but the article is nicely written from preventive perspective.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • 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 am founder & incharge of integrated cancer management program of my institute and work in collaboration with tata memorial centre, one of the largest cancer centre in indian subcontinent.

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence.[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002175
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Dnyanesh Belekar. Thank you for your feedback and i do agree that the name should be oropharyngeal carcinoma rather than oral cancer and it would sound better. Actually i tried to include all the major risk factors and causes and describe them but going further deeper into its details would actually make the article much longer so i tried to explain it to the maximum possible and keeping it within certain limit. I appreciate your positive and constructive feedback.
Responded by Dr. Zahid Ullah Khan on 10 Aug 2012 10:08:53 PM

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper is a general review of the problem of oral cancer in the Indian subcontinent.  Dr Zahid Ullah Khan has done an exhaustive literature search and has brought out relevant facts of the problem and has given suggestions for correction of what he perceives as shortcomings.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The recomendations are not new since many task forces have been set up to tackle the problem and a fare deal of success in some areas has been achieved. However, the recommendations are valid.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The review literature has been well worked out


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Since this is a review article no definite results have been recorded as such.


  • 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?

    The recomendations are valid.


  • 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?

    No additional work is required. However some reports of the National Cancer Registry and the Task forces by the ICMR, Indian Council of Medical Research may be consulted.


  • 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?

    The paper gives a proper overview of the problem.


  • Other Comments:

    This is a good review article which gives a fairly wide perspestive of the problem of oral cancer.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    I was the member of the Cancer Steering Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Iyengar B P.An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence.[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002172
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you Dr. Bhanu P Lyengar for your valuable feedback and kind words.
Responded by Dr. Zahid Ullah Khan on 07 Aug 2012 10:46:34 PM

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This is a very well written article on prevalence, causes, consequeces, prevention of oral cancer and also required interventions to reduce its incidence. It gives a very good overview of the problem in the world.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claims itself are not novel, but the approach provided by the author itself is new.


  • 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, it support the claims.


  • 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?

    Protocol is not applicable here.


  • 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?

    The paper itself contains a lot of information. So extra work may not be required.


  • 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?

    Yes, the paper is very important. The detailed review on oral cancer will be beneficial for other scientists in that field.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Public health. My Master Degree Research was on Lung Cancer.

  • How to cite:  Joshi S K.Review of an article on overview of oral cancer in Indian Subcontinent..... by Dr. Zahid Khan[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002171
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you Dear Dr. Sunil Kumar for giving your valuable time to go through my article and for providing positive feedback.
Responded by Dr. Zahid Ullah Khan on 07 Aug 2012 10:45:41 PM

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The author has stated different approaches to reduce the incidence of oral cancer, which include primary, secondary and tertiary prevention methods. Among them the author has included better hygiene, health education, and proper screening methods to detect those population at risk. Moreover earlier treatment and smoking cessation clinics joined together with a proper legislation at government level and even a global approach should be considered as essential to tackle this problem. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These recommendations are not new, but the fact that this article is trying to explain from a global perspective how to deal with a very important problem in a specific area is what makes it a novelty. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes. Good bibliography. 


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

     

    Yes. The article is well written. I cannot suggest any other evidence to include here. 


  • 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?

    Yes, this paper is completely understandable. 


  • 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 this paper is very well documented and explained. I do not think that it had been necessary to include any other information. 


  • 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?

    I think this paper is much more important for the area of Indian subcontinent but at the same time it is relevant for other countries, health authorities and professionals dealing with this cancer in order to provide them with the necessary experience to improve the results and reduce the incidence. 


  • Other Comments:

    No more comments to add here. 

  • Competing interests:
    No competing interest to declare
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Cidón EU. Giant macroglossia in head and neck cancer survivors: the unsolved issue. International Journal of Case Reports and Images 2011;2(12):11-14.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Una Cidon E .PREVENTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST ORAL CANCER IN INDIAN SUBCONTINENT[Review of the article 'An Overview of Oral Cancer in Indian Subcontinent and Recommendations to Decrease its Incidence. ' by Khan Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002169
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Prof. Esther Una Cidon. Thank you very much for your review and words of appreciation.
Responded by Dr. Zahid Ullah Khan on 07 Aug 2012 09:53:55 AM