Submited on: 03 Aug 2012 10:34:56 AM GMT
Published on: 03 Aug 2012 07:10:24 PM GMT
 

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

    Evaluate the extract from Ocimum canum leaves' antioxidative effects in preventing hepatic ischaemia.

    This paper is novel since there is few research on this plant.


  • 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?

    NA


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

    The route of administration in rats are not indicated.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    .

  • How to cite:  Zheng X .Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;5(12):WMCRW003163
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 authors claim that the hydro-alcoholic leaf extract of Ocimum canum has  antioxidant activity by scavenging radicals. Ocimum canum can be used as a preventive agent in hepatic IR injury.


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

    The authors stated that the phenolic acids and flavono-glycosides are present in Ocimum canum (ref 30,31), and these compounds are known to have antioxidant activities. So it's expectable that extract of Ocimum canum shows antioxidant activity, which weakens the novelty of this present study.


  • 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. However, the error bars in Fig 2 and Fig 3 are missing.  The data in Fig 2 and Fig 3 are exactly the same with each other. 


  • 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?

    None


  • 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?

    No. The reason is stated in the answer for the second question. 


  • Other Comments:
    It would be better for the language quality of this article if the grammar mistakes in this articles were corrected. 

    It Would be more clear for the Methods part of this article if the methods were logically structured,  numbered and given subtitles. 

  • 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:

    .

  • How to cite:  Xie Y .Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;5(11):WMCRW003141
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review on
Posted by Mr. Santiago Perez Lloret on 03 Oct 2012 03:36:42 PM GMT

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

    The article concludes that ocimum canum (OC) has antioxidant properties and that it may protect the liver from ischaemic injury in a rat model of ischemia-reperfusion.


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

    Yes, they are novel and original.


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

    Yes, there is evidence about OC effects as antioxidant in certain in vivo models of oxidative stress. Prevention of ischaemic injury in reperfusion models, which is related to oxidative stress, is then the logical next step to be tested.


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

    Yest, but it is essential to know the composition of OC. Therefore, if this has not been previously assessed you should do it.


  • 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 major deviations seem to have occurred


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

    I think that the methodology is ok and sufficiently described.


  • 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?

    It is essential to know the composition of OC. Therefore, if this has not been previously assessed you should do it.


  • 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?

    This is a very interesting and innovative study. Although it requires some corrections and clarifications, I would like to see it presented in a seminar.


  • Other Comments:

    Which strain of rats were used?

     

    Which metabolic pathways are evaluated by each in vitro test? You should comment on this in methods section and not in results section.

     

    How were histopathological changes evaluated? If only descriptive analysis was carried out, please state what were you looking for.

     

    Results:

     

    You comment on phytochemical analyses. If they were conducted by you, please give full detailed information, if not, you must comment on them in discussion or introduction section.

     

    I don’t see the figures of the effect of OC on hydroxyl radical scavenging activity and in the DPPH model. Does it correspond to Tables 1 and 2 (figures 2 and 3)? If it is the case, please add appropriate references.

    It would have been nice to add a negative control to both experiments.

     

    Table 3: does letter b refers to comparisons with group 3 “I/R”?

     

    Figures 4, 5 and 6: it would be nice if you could mark significant differences with asterisks.

     

    Please insert a reference for table 4 in the text.

  • 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:

    General pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, clinical pharmacology

  • How to cite:  Perez Lloret S .Review on [Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002273
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 hydro-alcholic extract from leaves of Ocimum canum is found to display antioxidant and hepatoprotective activity both in vitro and in vivo studies. These results may be useful for therapeutic potential to inhibit the tissue damage by ischemia.


  • 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?

    Maybe


  • 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?

    I do not understand this question.


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

    Probably, 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?

    Not necessary.


  • 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, because of difference from my studying field.


  • Other Comments:

    In graphic figures, indicate the marks of significant differences.

  • 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:

    Neuroanatomy, Neuropharmacology, Pain generation and Transmission

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydroalcholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002260
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in  Hepatic Ischaemia model. Recntly most of the pathophysiology of diseases are attributed to oxidative stress, in this context this article is quite 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?

    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?

    It's nice work.


  • 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?

    As I have mentioned earlier the results should not be presented both in graphical & tabular form. Those things should be taken care of and also the results should not be repeated in the discussion section.


  • Other Comments:

    No more comments.

  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Pradhan S .Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum Canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of Ocimum canum Hydro-alcoholic Leaf Extract in the Prevention of Hepatic Ischaemia ' by Choudhury P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002161
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse