Submited on: 04 Jul 2012 06:15:44 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Jul 2012 09:16:22 PM GMT
 

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

    The authors hope to devise a diagnostic tool based on changes in cortisol levels to assist in early diagnosis of neurological disorders.


  • 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?

    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 make an excellent presentation for a wide array of healthcare professionals.


  • Other Comments:

    100 volunteers were exposed to conditions to provoke a yawning response.  A study protocol is presented to discover the extent to which cortisol may be implicated during yawning.  A detailed section on the method and analysis is provided by the authors.  A further longitudinal study is planned.

  • 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:

    Clinical Associate Professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.The Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol Levels[Review of the article 'Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol ' by Bishop P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002275
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 suggest that yawning raises cortisol levels akin to that seen in stress and fatigue. They also claim that the  EMG data collection would be a novel feature of their proposed trial.


  • 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?

    Partly


  • 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?

    Exclusion criteria have not included Renal diorders, congestive heart states, certain respiratory disorders and history of stress states. Specification of timing of collection of salivary samples with justification is required.


  • 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?

    Yes


  • 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?

    Not outstanding. 

    This study may shed some light or contribute partially to evidence to link between yawning salivary cortisol, which itself needs time-testing. The authors themselves speculate that several subjects will not exhibit yawning response upon exposure to the guideline-stimuli.

    Clarification is required for the relation especially causal-effect between salivary cortisol and yawning.

    Clarification whether salivary cortisol levels are raised above normal even before yawning response; only then the importance of this trial for neurological disorders and justification of the title of the article.


  • 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:

    Yes

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Jaseja H .Relation Between Yawning and Salivary Cortisol Levels[Review of the article 'Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol ' by Bishop P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002086
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This article proposes that there is a realtionship between one's cortisol level and yawning.  This opens up the field of neurology, where yawning may in the future be seen as a symptom of a disease/disorder.


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

    The claims ARE novel


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

    As the article is proposing a new hypothesis, there is limited previous literature where comparision can be made. 


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

    The results support the claim that there is a link between cortisol levels and yawning.  However further investigation is needed in determining its validity, i.e., rule of extraneous variables. 


  • 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?

    There are no deviations


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

    The method is valid, enabling repeat of this investigation by other researchers.


  • 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?

    Additional information that would help this article will predominately come from its reproduction with slight alternations from further investigations.


  • 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 article is outstanding in the fact that it is a new hypothesis that is currently being investigated.  I would think/hope this article will be referred to as a foundation to future work within this 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:

    N/A

  • How to cite:  Chinnery H .Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol [Review of the article 'Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol ' by Bishop P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002066
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review on paper
Posted by Dr. Yaroslav Winter on 07 Jul 2012 10:40:36 AM GMT

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

    The objective is to investigate relationship between th cortisol levels and yawning. It is an interesting and novel scope to understand yawning.


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

    The claims are novel.


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

    Yes. The reference Nr 2 is not correct. It should be "WMC Neurology" and not "Neurology"


  • 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 deviations


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

    The methodology is 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?

    The information provided is sufficient.


  • 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


  • Other Comments:

    No other comments

  • 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:

    No experience in the field of yawning research

  • How to cite:  Winter Y .Review on paper [Review of the article 'Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol ' by Bishop P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002041
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Trial to Investigate....Review
Posted by Mr. Brian Thompson on 06 Jul 2012 06:03:34 PM GMT

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

    Cortisol and yawning are linked - this is such an important idea with a lot of implications.


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

    Yes, they are novel. I have not read them before.


  • 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?

    Protocol paper so results are not yet known.


  • 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 paper is well-written and is an exciting study protocol. Appropriately wrtten.


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

    Yes, totally 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?

    I do not think so.


  • 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 is. I am not aware that this work has been done before. I highly commend the authors.


  • Other Comments:

    I believe Author 1 has an interesting and novel hypothesis. I am looking forward to the data.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Rehabilitation.

  • How to cite:  Thompson B .Trial to Investigate....Review[Review of the article 'Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol ' by Bishop P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002037
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Trial to investigate
Posted by Ms. Natalie Jones on 05 Jul 2012 09:35:30 PM GMT

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

    Purports to investigate a most interesting phenomenon about cortisol levels and yawning - highly relevant to neurology.


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

    Yes, they are completely novel. I am unaware of them actually being investigated, to date.


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

    Definitely.


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

    It is a study protocol so I eagerly await findings.


  • 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?

    Appropriately placed.


  • 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 is the first, as far as I am aware.


  • Other Comments:

    Great paper.

  • Competing interests:
    None.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Assist in neurological assessment.

  • How to cite:  Jones N .Trial to investigate[Review of the article 'Trial to Investigate the Maintenance Effects of Yawning on Salivary Cortisol levels: Thompson Cortisol Hypothesis. A Protocol ' by Bishop P].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002036
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse