Submited on: 13 Nov 2012 03:34:29 PM GMT
Published on: 14 Nov 2012 08:00:13 PM GMT
 

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

    From the authors experience telenuclearmedicine networks are helpful and necessary in the interdisciplinary work-up of thyroid nodules. The exchange of expert opinions enables making a correct and rapid diagnosis.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
    They are not novel but the value of this paper is in showing the authors personal experiance gathered in their own daily prictice.

  • 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 would be of value to show potential mistakes in a diagnostic process when there is a lack/gap in communication between radiologists/ nuclear medicine specialists and cytologists.

  • 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 informative , which is of value, when it comes to presenting it in a teaching session.


  • 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:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a trainee in radiology

  • How to cite:  Kondrat P . Value of Collaboration of Radiologists, Nuclear Medicine Specialists and Cytologists.[Review of the article 'Telenuclearmedicine and Cytology - A Collaborative Approach ' by Nagel H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002390
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Improvement of the patients´management, improvement of the communication beetween nuclearmedicine and cytology, optimization of the quality of fine needle aspiration biopsy: important.


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

    The claims are not novel. However, the methodology is promising in the specified setting. Results of experimental work can be initiated by these initial experiences.


  • 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?

    Concerning simplicity of data transfer and low cost expenditure the results support the claims. Further evidence should be compiled with respect to diagnostic improvement.


  • 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 paper fits into the category "My Opinion". Nevertheless, the exchange of data between nuclearmedicine and cytology should be validated further in an appropiate experimental setting.


  • 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 "My Opinion" paper should be follwed by a comparative study with respect to the improvement of diagnostic accuracy. In a comparative study results with and without telenuclearmedicine should be monitored.


  • 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 methodology should be propagated and introduced into the clinical settings because of its simplicity and low cost characteristics.


  • Other Comments:

    None

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

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Experience in fine needle aspiration biopsy

  • How to cite:  Horstrup K .Telenuclearmedicine and Cytology - Improvement of the Patients Management[Review of the article 'Telenuclearmedicine and Cytology - A Collaborative Approach ' by Nagel H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002389
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse