WebmedCentral.com :: Article Review View

Submited on: 27 Jan 2013 06:17:21 PM GMT

Published on: 29 Jan 2013 06:15:48 PM GMT

Electrocardiographic Studies During Endotoxic Shock and after Flunixin Meglumine, ketanov Infusion Singly and in Combination in Male Buffalo Calves

Posted by Dr. Pietro Scicchitano on 01 Feb 2013 06:30:19 PM GMT

What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The paper dealt with the effects of NSAIDs in facing endotoxic shock in male Buffalo Calves. The results could be really important if translated in human field.
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes, they are almost new.
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?

An increase of sample size.
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?

No.
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?

Yes, an increase in sample size would be better in order to improve the 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?
Yes, due to NSAIDs use evaluation in clinical practice in a particular pathological situation
Other Comments:
Bari, February, 01st, 2013

Title: “Electrocardiographic Studies During Endotoxic Shock and after Flunixin Meglumine, ketanov Infusion Singly and in Combination in Male Buffalo Calves”.

Dear Editor,

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

1. English should be revised in order to correct some flaws.
2. The study involved a small sample size. This should be mentioned as a limitation of the study.
3. Acronyms should be mentioned at their first appearance in the text (i.e., BW). Please provide.
4. Figure 1,2,3 are not clear. A figure legend is need and a better explanation of the figures. Please provide.
5. The authors did not compare data in a statistically way. Table 1 and 2 showed data not compared each other in a statistical way. Can the authors provide explanation about this? Can the authors adequately compare the data?
6. The authors wrote: “The mean heart rate/min ranged between 44.12±3.43 to 50.91±7.68 beats/min (Table 5) which is close to 48.67±4.84 to 50.50±15.50 beats/min (Sobti et al 1981) but slightly less than 52.91±2.92 to 61.50±1.19 beats/min (Singh 2000), and 52.60±2.92 to 61.50 beat/min (Singh 2007)”. Nevertheless no table 5 can be detected in the main manuscript. Can the authors comment such a point?

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Pietro Scicchitano

Address:

Piazza G. Cesare 11 - 70124 Bari Italy
Tel +39-3339801846
e-mail: piero.sc@hotmail.it
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 work in intensive care unit in Cardiology Department
How to cite: Scicchitano P .Electrocardiographic Studies During Endotoxic Shock and after Flunixin Meglumine, ketanov Infusion Singly and in Combination in Male Buffalo Calves[Review of the article 'Electrocardiographic Studies During Endotoxic Shock and after Flunixin Meglumine, ketanov Infusion Singly and in Combination in Male Buffalo Calves ' by Bansal S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002476

Rating
Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Report abuse

1. English should be revised in order to correct some flaws. It will be very helpful if any specific sentence which needs correction is cited. 2. The study involved a small sample size. This should be mentioned as a limitation of the study. The study is on 15 buffalo calves which is not a small sample size. IAEC allows only minimum possible number. 3. Acronyms should be mentioned at their first appearance in the text (i.e., BW). Please provide. BW stands for body weight. I shall change the text according to the suggestion if any more acronyms are to be provided. 4. Figure 1,2,3 are not clear. A figure legend is need and a better explanation of the figures. Please provide. Figure 1 depicts ECG changes during endotoxin infusion and after infusion of Flunixin meglumine while Figure 2
Responded by Dr. Digvijay Singh on 11 Feb 2013 04:35:12 PM

Reviews