Submited on: 12 Jan 2013 07:39:10 PM GMT
Published on: 15 Jan 2013 06:37:13 PM GMT
 
Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 12 Mar 2013 04:16:33 AM GMT

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

    1. main claim is that clinician must make a differential diagnosis in between the mitral valve prolapse; unstable angina and  syndrome X
    2. main claim is not very important


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

    Different from author's claims,  differential diagnosis IS NOT DIFFICULT between the mitral valve prolapse; unstable angina and  syndrome X, However, this differential diagnosis is very important to the clinician.


  • 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?

    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?

    No need


  • 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:

    No additional 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:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X[Review of the article 'Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X ' by Ranxha E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002591
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 16 Jan 2013 07:04:25 PM GMT

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

    The paper dealt with an ACS case. Syndrome X was the final diagnosis.


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

    The claims are not novel due to several case reports about this theme in literature.


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

    Unfortunately no.


  • 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?

    No, it should be improved.


  • 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?

    If additional information are provided, the paper would be improved.


  • 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 at the moment there is no sign of novelty about this matter.


  • Other Comments:

    Bari, January, 16th, 2013

    Title: “Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X”.

    Dear Editor,

    We have read through the manuscript and we think that the manuscript seems to show important and major lacking news:

    1. English should be revised in order to correct some flaws.
    2. The authors wrote: “complaining for restrosternal chest pain”. What kind of pain was? Was it a typical one? How long did it last? How did it answer to rest from exercise?
    3. The authors wrote: “At that period the episode of atrial fibrillation was converted through oral amiodarone therapy”. Did the authors know why patient underwent Amiodarone therapy at that time in order to control rhythm of atrial fibrillation? The authors said that the patient had no structural heart disease, thus it is quite strange the use of Amiodarone as first line therapy. Although I know the patient underwent such a therapy three years ago, can the authors comment such a therapy?
    4. The authors wrote: “no genetic history for ischemic cardiac disease was reported”. Can they be more clear when they wrote about genetics in ischemic cardiac disease? What king of genetic tests did they perform to assess ischemic heart diseases?
    5. The case report dealt with a patient suffering from acute coronary syndrome. It is quite surprising that the authors did not report cardiac marker of necrosis such as troponins. Can they report these values at admittance in emergency department and, eventually, during the hospital staying?
    6. The authors only spoke about unstable angina, X syndrome and/or mitral valve prolapsed. Why did they exclude NSTEMI? When did they perform coronary angiography? And when did they perform a stress test? It is quite surprising they perform a stress test within an ACS. Can they report the exact moment since admission of each procedure performance?
    7. Many other differential diagnosis had not been considered: i.e., Prinzmetal syndrome, Takotsubo syndrome, myocarditis, etc Can the authors provide full explanation about this?
    8. It would be more reliable if the authors update references about ACS with the most recent guidelines rather than 2002 ones (i.e., reference 5).
    9. The authors should explain the novelty if this case report. At the moment it is rather difficult to understand why the case is interesting.

  • 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 work as a medical assistant in cardiology and intensive care unit.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X[Review of the article 'Clinical Features of a Case with Syndrome X ' by Ranxha E].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002445
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse