Submited on: 06 Nov 2012 10:58:41 AM GMT
Published on: 07 Nov 2012 09:59:38 PM GMT
 

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

    The main claims of the paper are that many Siddha treatments are effective for Dengue. If true, this would be very important given the morbidity and mortality from Dengue and the current lack of proven treatments.


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

    These are novel claims - there are no published reports regarding treatment beyond supportive care.


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

    There is no  discussion of the current standard of care for pateints with Dengue.


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

    There are no results presented in this paper. Rather, there is reference to in vitro studies regarding the activity of various treatments on the dengue virus, the A. aegypti (vector), or anti-inflammatory activity.


  • 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 is no protocol provided.


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

    There is no methodology provided.


  • 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?

    N/A


  • 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, this is not outstanding. There is no data or original research presented.


  • Other Comments:

    There is a claim that Dengue-nfluenza cure powder is a "clinically proved medicine by Dr.G.D.Naidu, Dr.Shanmugavelu and mentioned in the book Research pharmacopeia of siddha medicines". However, no reference is listed for this book.

  • 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:

    Infectious Diseases Physician, Medical Director for Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

  • How to cite:  Herchline T .Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue[Review of the article 'Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue ' by Jega Jothi Pandian S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002326
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Evidence based siddha medical management of dengue
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 08 Nov 2012 06:44:08 PM GMT

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

    Through this paper, the authors describe a traditional treatment for dengue fever based on "Siddha system of medicine groups" that claims a lot of lives in the developing world. This paper outlines the details of the treatment along with the prescriptive guidelines for treating dengue fever that poses a huge economic burden to the lives of the people in the developing world. So it is clearly an important issue in the field of public health.


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

    It is a traditional form of treatment of a communicable disease that is examined. So it is clearly a novel idea to a large part of the audience.


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

    No. There are no benchmarks used in order to compare the claims made in this paper. The authors do not specify why this form of medical treatment should override the conventional form of modern medicine treatment. Although it is stated it is a clinically proven treatment, there is no previous literature or evidence presented in support of it. 


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

    There is a lot of information presented about the different ingredients of the medicines under the Siddha system along with detailed prescriptive guidelines. Although the names of ingredients are not comprehensible to a non-native reader, their medicinal values are justified based on previous 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?

    NA


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

    Besides listing the treatment for the disease and the prescription guidelines, there is no methodology described in this paper. 


  • 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?

    Certainly. Background of the Siddha system of medicine group and their record in treating similar non-communicable diseases/ The success record of the recommended treatment/Side-effects if any of the recommended treatment vis-a-vis a conventional medical treatment would have all helped in improving this paper. 


  • 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. An objective evaluation about the success of this treatment vis-a-vis the conventional medical treatment would have helped. 


  • 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:
    None
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Evidence based siddha medical management of dengue[Review of the article 'Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue ' by Jega Jothi Pandian S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002325
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 main claims are the effectiveness of traditional cures used in Siddha system of Medicine for Dengue. These claims are important since dengue fever is fast emerging due to rapid industrialization, increase mobiilty and population density, increase in vectors due to poor water management and climate changes, and occassional severe forms such as dengue hemmorhagic fever which can be fatal.


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

    Though the title of the paper mentions, "Evidence based," most of the claims are based on reports in classic texts with no description of rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials which would substantiate such claims. Majority of the cases of dengue fever may be self limiting making it difficult to establish the efficacy of drugs claimed to be effective. The paucity of properly described RCTS weaken the claim of "evidence based" recommendations of the paper.


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

    No


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

    No, more review of properly conducted RCTs is indicated.


  • 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 of studies mentioned not described


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

    No


  • 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?

    RCTs would be required. Large samples of dengue patients with be required. Confirmation of diagnosis would require specialized laboratory support. Work on this would be quite difficult and also involve high costs.


  • 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:

    No

  • 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:

    Have worked in the field of vector borne diseases as a public health specialist and epidemiologist in the armed forces. Have published on vector borne diseases such as malaria. Trained in clinical epidemiology and research methodology which facilitates critical appraisal of papers

  • How to cite:  Banerjee A .Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue[Review of the article 'Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue ' by Jega Jothi Pandian S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002324
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 08 Nov 2012 02:09:01 AM GMT

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

    Dengue is an important cause in India especially during the last few months. So the study is very inportant in this situation to know about how can ww manage dengue through our traditional treatments.


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

    Yes. But the discussion section is not satisfactory.


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

    Unfortunately the authors are not given the botanical names of the plant names. Instead of providing local (Tamil) names in the treatments in Siddha section, along with these local names the scientific names would also be provided.


  • 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?

    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 methodology part is not applicable, since the paper is evidence based review article.


  • 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?

    NIL


  • 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. Only the siddha knowledge is provided without any outstanding clinical references or discussions


  • Other Comments:

    Nil.

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

    Duraipandiyan V, Ayyanar M & Ignacimuthu S, 2006. Antimicrobial activity of some ethnomedicinal plants used by Paliyar tribe from Tamil Nadu India. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine; 6:35 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-6-35

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue[Review of the article 'Evidence based Siddha Medical Management of Dengue ' by Jega Jothi Pandian S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002323
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse