Submited on: 30 Nov 2012 01:47:17 AM GMT
Published on: 30 Nov 2012 08:32:43 PM GMT
 
Useful But Can Be Improved on
Posted by Dr. Paari Murugan on 03 Feb 2013 02:33:41 AM GMT

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

    The claims are well illustrated in the title of the article. Predicting the behavior of pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas has been and still is a diagnostic problem. The article is indeed relevant and important.


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

    No, this is a literature 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?

    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?

    NA


  • 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, images and additional tables summarizing the criteria are 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, but it would only be a good starting point for further study.


  • Other Comments:

    Spelling, grammar and sentence formation need improvement.

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

    P Murugan, Adrenal Gland In: Vietnamese Pathology textbook project sponsored by the Vietnamese Ministry of Health (In process)

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Murugan P .Useful But Can Be Improved on[Review of the article 'Sporadic Pheochromocytoma: Anapathologic, Immunohistochemical and Cytogenetic Aspects Associated with the Occurrence of Metastasis: A Literature Review ' by Cury S].WebmedCentral 2012;4(2):WMCRW002479
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 correct and they are 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 since they were previously reviewed and published.


  • 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?

    The authors only review the opinions and assertions of other authors, but they do not present any new knowledge.


  • 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?

    N/A


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

    N/A


  • 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?

    They must present immunohistochemical photomicrographs on the issue.


  • 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?

    If this papaer do not present immunohistochemical photomicrographs supportin the contentions they content. This manuscript is worthless.


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

    I am a 35 years experienced Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist.

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .A Review on the Manuscript: The claims Sporadic Pheochromocytoma: Anapathologic, Immunohistochemical and Cytogenetic Aspects Associated with the Occurrence of Metastasis: A Literature Review [Review of the article 'Sporadic Pheochromocytoma: Anapathologic, Immunohistochemical and Cytogenetic Aspects Associated with the Occurrence of Metastasis: A Literature Review ' by Cury S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002421
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse