Submited on: 05 Feb 2013 11:25:12 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Feb 2013 06:44:30 PM GMT
Molecular Diagnosis
Posted by Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 06 Feb 2013 06:12:56 AM GMT

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

    The authors try to project a particular analytical method for molecular diagnosis and subsequent analysis.

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

    No. As the authors themselves point, the present paper describes an improvement/innovation of High resolution melting (HRM) - a process that was invented elsewhere (Idaho Technology).

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

    To a certain extent the claims are properly placed. However, there is a scope for improvement on citing and comparing with previous literature.

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

    More details in the figure 1 and comparative figures will support the authors' 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?

    1.  A separate section detailing the protocol will be less taxing to the reader.  

    2.  A huge paragraph (that can be split into at least three smaller paragraphs) describing the innovation confuses the reader as to what exactly the authors want to say.  

    3.  This gains prominence given the fact that the authors themselves a list of technologies, some of which, if not all, involve melting of the DNA.

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

    More details warranted.

  • 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?

    1.  If possible, they should generate results for the same analysis using the techniques they have listed.

    2.  A comparative note on time taken by the innovation will add credance to the paper.

    3.  Also, rather than the work, it is the way how the authors present the information they want to share, matters

  • 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?


  • Other Comments:

    Molecular diagnosis is on the rise in labs the world over. Any innovation/improvement of existing technologies will be a step towards enhanced technologies that are time-saving and cost-effective. Therefore, articles of this type are of immense value.  Hence, certain care and time must be spent on drafting the paper. Overall, although what the authors want to say is good, they let themselves down owing to poor quality of writing.

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Research experience in Biotechnology over a decade and a half.

  • How to cite:  Poduri C D.Molecular Diagnosis[Review of the article 'Tuberculosis and Molecular Diagnosis' by Singh R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002491
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse