Submited on: 15 Jan 2013 10:44:34 PM GMT
Published on: 16 Jan 2013 02:11:38 PM GMT
 

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

    The main aim of the paper is to elucidate the association between a personality trait - neuroticism and cardiovascular response to stress. Based on the results of the study the authors conclude that there is a link between neuroticism and cardiovascular regulation.

    This is important because everyday life is accompanied with different stages of stress affecting the function of the cardiovascular system on the basis of psychosomatic disorders like hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, gastrointestinal symptoms. The onset of ?utonomic cardiovascular dysregulation with predominance of the sympathetic outflow in young adults would indicate increased cardiovascular risk. This is particularly relevant to individuals with familial history of cardiovascular diseases.


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

    The conclusions are not entirely novel, but new evidence from the links between psychology and somatoform disorders, as mental disorders, characterized by symptoms that suggest physical illness are useful for psychotherapy. Recently, a new interdisciplinary field of science appeared, neurocardiology, that analyses autonomic cardiac function using sophisticated mathematical analyses of heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure variability (BPV), baroreflex sensitivity, etc. The exact relationship between neuroticism and cardiovascular reactivity has not been clarified yet, there is also contradicting evidence regarding cardiac or blood pressure responses.


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

    The problems of psychophysiology of cardiovascular reactivity and cardiovascular reactivity to stress are covered in many publications over the last 10 years. The Introduction gives a balanced view of the published literature.


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

    The results obtained confirmed that neuroticism has an effect on cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms. High neurotics as identified by the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) have a more reactive sympathetic nervous system. The authors observe a significantly higher vascular tone in high neurotics before and during mental load as evidence for an  exaggerated vascular reactivity in response to mental stress. This heightened reactivity is a prediction for the development of hypertension. The results presented in the paper support the conclusions.


  • 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?

    The sampling is appropriate to the aims of the study.


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

    Photoplethysmographic index known as “modulus of elasticity” (ME) is used for assessment of the vascular stress response (higher values of ME indicate higher tonic tension of blood vessels). The methodology is appropriate to the aims of the study.


  • 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?

    Studies in this area would benefit from analyses of frequency domain heart rate variability, achievable with Biopac System AcqKnowledge software used by the authors.


  • 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 theoretical problem and the experimental aproach in this manuscript are suitable to be presented in a seminar as a part of clinical physiology courses.


  • Other Comments:

    The paper is suitable for publication in its present form. The article is well written and clear to understand.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    N.Belova, St. Mihaylov, B.Piryova Wavelet transform: A better approach for the evaluation of instantaneous changes in heart rate variability. Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and Clinical 131 (2007) 107-122

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Piryova B .Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load[Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002481
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This paper aims to analyze and compare vascular stress response in subjects with different level of neuroticism. Data were obtained using photoplethysmographic index of elasticity in 41 volunteers. The cocnlusions indicate that there is an association between neuroticism and the level of tension of cardiovascular regulations. Moreover, high neurotics seem to have a more reactive sympathetic nervous system.


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

    Data obtained in this study are original. However, this topis is not new and has been repeatedly investigated. These findings support a previously known concept that there is association between vascular stress response and level of neuroticism. This work deals with an old topic, using a different methodology, yet comes to a conclusion that has been reached by several other investigations.


  • 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?

    No deviations


  • 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?

    Comparison of the results with other cardiovascular merasures would be interesting.


  • 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. This paper comes to results that support a previously known concept.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • 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:

    Experience in medical biophysics and physiology

  • How to cite:  Knocikova J . Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load[Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002464
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Authors have mentioned about an association between neuroticism and anticipatory vascular stress response. In this study,the vascular responses to mental load in low neurotic and in high neurotic subjects has been compared. The module of elasticity (ME) as a plethysmographic index has been used for analysing the claims which indeed has to be appreciated.


  • 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?

    Yes. Good literature search of previous studies.


  • 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?

    Yes


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

    Yes.Methodology is crisp.


  • 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?

    This need to be worked out on a larger study group to claim the full result.


  • 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:

    Good work, formatting, literature search and clear mention of the results with its limitations following a neat discussion.

  • 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:

    Published research articles on work stress in National and International journals. Editorial member of a National Journal.

  • How to cite:  Dutt. R A .Review on- Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load [Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002460
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    A very important problem about the association between neuroticism and cardiovascular response to the stress was pointed in the study of Stoyanov  et al. “Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load”. The authors emphasize that PPG-index is affected not only from the cognitive load, emotional reactions, endocrine system, peripheral tissue receptor sensitivity, but the relationships between personality, stress reactivity, health and sex differences have also influenced on this parameter.


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

    Yes, the exact relationship between neuroticism and cardiovascular reactivity has not been clarified yet.


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

    The study is an appropriate continuation of the previous literature. 


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

    Yes, the main conclusion of an association between neuroticism and anticipatory vascular stress response supported by their data.


  • 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?

    The neurotic groups are well defined and the statistics are appropriate for this data set.


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

    A modern infrared procedure is applied for monitoring of the peripheral blood flow and also the use of arithmetic task is the most appropriate experimental task for an assessment of the mental load. The module of elasticity is an informative parameter for the assessment of the vascular stress response. The paper offers enough details of its methodology that its experiments and analysis could be reproduced.


  • 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 results are described very clearly and confirm that neuroticism has an effect on the level of tension of cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms and do not suggest a great association of greater reactivity with higher neuroticism. The authors indicate the future questions about their next research in the discussion. 


  • 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, this study would be part of serious discussion on the significance of the cognitive load, emotional reactions, endocrine system, personality, stress reactivity, health and sex differences.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    23 years in Neuroscience

  • How to cite:  Dushanova J .Review: Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load [Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002457
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This study is dedicated to the investigation of the relation between neuroticism and cardiovascular response to stress. The vascular responses to mental load in low neurotic and in high neurotic subjects are compared. The module of elasticity (ME) as a plethysmographic index have been used for assessment of vascular stress response. Authors concluded that an association between neuroticism and anticipatory vascular stress response does exist. This is an important conclusion in the research field of psychophysiology.


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

    Even following the tradition on psychophysiology the main claims of the paper are novel and with a high level of originality.


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

    The claims are properly placed in the context of the previous literature.


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

    The results are presented in one figure and one table and adequately support the claims and the following conclusions.


  • 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?

    The study is not based on a randomized controlled trial.


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

    A relevant methodology have been used in the study. It is described in details in Methods. The peripheral blood flow have been monitored by infrared photoplethysmographic probe. The procedure is presented very well.


  • 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 paper provides enough information about the investigation performed


  • 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?

    I intend to include the published data in this paper in my lectures with medical students in university.


  • Other Comments:

    Good scientific language style. Clear conclusions and statements.

  • 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:

    Experimental physiology - response of cardio vascular system to physical stress.

  • How to cite:  Boyadjiev N P.Review on the paper 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load'[Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002453
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This study is dedicated to the investigation of the relation between neuroticism and cardiovascular response to stress. The vascular responses to mental load in low neurotic and in high neurotic subjects are compared. The module of elasticity (ME) as a plethysmographic index have been used for assessment of vascular stress response. Authors concluded that an association between neuroticism and anticipatory vascular stress response does exist. This is an important conclusion in the research field of psychophysiology.


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

    Even following the tradition on psychophysiology the main claims of the paper are novel and with a high level of originality.


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

    The claims are properly placed in the context of the previous literature.


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

    The results are presented in one figure and one table and adequately support the claims and the following conclusions.


  • 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?

    The study is not based on a randomized controlled trial.


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

    A relevant methodology have been used in the study. It is described in details in Methods. The peripheral blood flow have been monitored by infrared photoplethysmographic probe. The procedure is presented very well.


  • 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 paper provides enough information about the investigation performed.


  • 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?

    I intend to include the published data in this paper in my lectures with medical students in university


  • Other Comments:

    Good scientific language style. Clear conclusions and statements.

  • 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:

    My eperience is in the field of the experimental physiology - assessment of circulatory response to physical stress

  • How to cite:  Boyadjiev N P.Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load - paper by Stoyanov Z., I. Boncheva, P. Nikolova, and M. Ivanova[Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002452
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Importunate Study of an Imperative Topic
Posted by Prof. Prasunpriya Nayak on 21 Jan 2013 04:24:50 AM GMT

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

    The work was intended to establish the link between neuroticism and cardiovascular stress response. In the context of current acclivity of lifestyle diseases globally, the study is of high impact. The paper claims to have confirmed the association between neuroticism and ‘level of tension of cardiovascular regulatory mechanism’ (vascular tone?). The study emphasized the difference in ‘Module of Elasticity’ of varying personality traits – neuroticism.


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

    The objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between neuroticism and cardiovascular response – which was reported by several authors (cited by references 6-15) before (1996-2011), even though with contradictory results.


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

    The previous literature were studied extensively and used in the right context. 


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

    In view of reported observations, the claim of confirming association between neuroticism and vascular responses seems to be an overstatement. However, if the same data would have presented in terms of correlation between neuroticism score and ME values (pre-stress, during-stress and the difference), better presentation and interpretation could have been possible.


  • 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?

    As the study include only few subjects, no scope of trial. The protocol of the study is not clear about (a) what is the basis of number of subject, (b) is the study approved by IEC or IRB or such research committee, (c) objective targetted data analysis, (d) scope of the study.


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

    The methodology of the paper is seemed to be standarid published method. However, there is only limited scope to varify or reproduce, as the referred articles are in Bulgarian and Russian journals. It would have been better if more details of the procedures have been provided in the article itself.


  • 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 article lacks good planning. So there is hardly any scope to improve this article.


  • 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. The topic of the article is very interesting and demanding. However, the article could not really justify itself to be treated as outstanding.


  • Other Comments:

    Nil

  • Competing interests:
    Nil
  • 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:

    15 years of teaching Physiology and 20 years of research in Physiology

  • How to cite:  Nayak P .Importunate Study of an Imperative Topic [Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002448
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    1) Compare the Vascular responses to mental load in low neurotic and high neurotic subjects

    2) Photoplethysmographic index known as "module of elasticity" (ME) was measured in 41 young volunteers and deemed to be neurotic using the Eyesenck personality Inventory and mentally challenged with a combination of memory and mental arthimetic tasks

    3) Concluded that an association between neuroticism and anticipatory vascular stress response exists because

    (a) Before Mental load the ME was lower in low neurotic group; but

    (b) Higher in high neurotic group during the mental load. Finally

    (c) Baseline-to-task re;ative changes in ME were similar in both groups. These are relatively important claims. The word relatively is used because no attempt is made to provide a working Hypothesis useful in understanding basic mechanisms of coronary atherosclerosis or essential hypertension that are 2 examples the authors themselves recongnize as clinically Important.


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

    No, Previous claims by others cited in references 10-15 predate this claim. References 13-15 yield studies of negative or contradictory results but within the domain of the study duscribed here.


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

    Yes, although incomplete, this paper properly places their work in context of others.


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

    Yes, the main conclusion of an association between neuroticism and anticipatory vascular stress response supported by their data.


  • 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 mention is made of randomized controlled trials for this study. The low number of qualified subjects negates the use of such trial.


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

    Much more detail on particlularly the mental load as a task would greatly assist the reader. The Piryov and Tsaney is published in Bulgarian nad not known enough to leave undescribed, even in brief. A statement saying that the mental load is equivalent to serial sevens(Which It probably is Not) or some other widely known task would be helpful for those wanting to make comparisons between methodologies in papers in this area. I gave the authors the benefit of the doubt that tha task is essentially similar to the load used like papers.


  • 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?

    I don't think it would require that much more effort to propose a working hypothesis for the mechanism of action considering the previous experience of the authors. They were conservative in their interpretation and conclusion but it would have added interest to add in more hypothetical explainations providing they were adequately identified as such and within reasonable bounds of their experiences.


  • 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, this subject is of considerable importance and would be part of any serious discussion on neuropsycho physiological influences on hypertension, or for that matter a discussion on stress. Because there are contraversial views arising from different investigations this paper realistically will become one on the side stating the idea of only that such an association exists. In future, more research should determine with greater accuracy the significance to what degree of power that response is accoring to the mental load.


  • Other Comments:

    The discussion is a partcularly well balanced explaination of the limitations the authors practice, and shows great insight on the nature of the problem under investigation. In comparision to the other papers in this area of study, this paper is particularly devoid of some of the tangential thinking representing a drift from the essential issues. Yet, it is quite comprehensive by including the techniques and present day neuroendocrine issues deserving of focus.

  • 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:

    Internationally recongnized teacher and researcher and currently teaching an online course in neuropsychophysiology.

  • How to cite:  Kozlowski G P.Review of: Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load[Review of the article 'Neuroticism and Vascular Response to Mental Load ' by Ivanova M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002446
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse