Submited on: 28 Jan 2013 11:48:55 AM GMT
Published on: 29 Jan 2013 06:15:19 PM GMT
 

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

    To report a case & review of literature about it


  • 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?

    No


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

    No


  • 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?

    There are few points i would like to mention regarding this paper-

    1. The paper does not mention about details about the patient's post operative recovery who was in peritonitis
    2. why the protective colostomy was not performed & why primary anastomosis done is not duely justified
    3. how long was the follow up of patient is not known ?
    4. literature review is very short
    5. There is no mention about other options regarding this entity like colostomy or any other
    6. no review about the perticular approach taken by the operating team with literature & its validity.
    7. no clear take home message out of this paper for new surgeons


  • 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:
    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 performing gastro intestinal & colo-rectal surgeries for last many[14] years.

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.Splenic Flexure Volvulus Presenting With Peritonitis: Case Report and Review of the Literature[Review of the article 'Splenic Flexure Volvulus Presenting with Peritonitis: Case Report and Review of the Literature. ' by Giliberti G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002492
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Main claims of the paper include rarity of the condition and success in management by left hemicolectomy and primary anastomosis


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

    The claims are not novel


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

    Yes they are


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

    Yes. The outcome supports the 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?

    Not applicable


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

    Not applicable 


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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 paper is not outstanding except to the extent that primary anastomosis of the left colon was dared and was successful


  • Other Comments:

    The authors should have added a word or two on the measures they took to ensure a successful outcome in primary anastomosis of the left Colon in a background of gangrene and peritonitis

  • 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:

    Extensive experience in the practice of gastrointestinal surgery before settling in urology

  • How to cite:  Essiet A .Review of Paper on Splenic Flexure Volvulus with Gangrene and Peritonitis.[Review of the article 'Splenic Flexure Volvulus Presenting with Peritonitis: Case Report and Review of the Literature. ' by Giliberti G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002472
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse