-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The paper makes the point that residual adenoid tissue in adults should be in the differential diagnosis of a PNS mass
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Whilst many surgeons will be aware of this already, the paper presents a series and highlights that adenoids should be in our differential diagnosis
-
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?
This was a case notes review
-
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?
Larger patient numbers would be useful, as would the denominator of how many patients with PNS presented to the unit.
-
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:
ENT surgeon
- How to cite: .Adenoids in Adults[Review of the article 'Adenoid Hypertrophy in Adults - A Myth or Reality ' by Ghate G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002583
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This paper claims adenoid hypertrophy is common in adults.
Concerns:
This aim has not be substantiated since the sample size was statistically insignificant.
No statistical tools have been used to evalute the generated data. Secondary causes of adenoid hypertrophy like chronic sinus infections have not been ruled out
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No, Adenoid hypertrophy is common in adults with chronic sinus infections due to persistent post nasal drip
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes, Only aspect which has been taken into account is the presence or absence of adenoid hypertophy in adults
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes, But statistically not significant because of the 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, This is not a randomized controlled trial. No statistical tool has been used to validate data generated
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
No methadology provided Study methadology was not discussed in this paper
-
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?
Large sample size is required. Focal sepsis of paranasal sinuses should be evaluated for in these patients.
This study should perferably be a double blind one and randomized.
Statistical tool should be used to validate data
-
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:
Nil
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
No
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Yes
- How to cite: Thiagarajan B .Adenoid Hypertrophy in Adults - A myth or Reality[Review of the article 'Adenoid Hypertrophy in Adults - A Myth or Reality ' by Ghate G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002563
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
No specific claims have been made.They have recounted their experience of adenoid hypertrophy presence in adults.
No,Adenoid hypertrophy in adults and their experience in diagnosing and treating the same is reported here in this article.
Yes, adenoid hypertrophy is reported in adults and newer diagnostic methods and surgical options are reported.
No specific cause for adenoid hypertrophy in adults is analyzed, a proper study to include causation, diagnosis and management should be more appropriate.
No protocol is provided.This is not a randomized control trial.
This is only a case report.
We do frequently come across adenoid hypertrophy in adults especially in patients with allergic rhinitis with chronic rhinosinusitis.,and if sinusitis and allergic rhinitis is addressed properly patients show good symptomatic improvement.
No specific comment
We do frequently come across adenoid hypertrophy in adults especially in patients with allergic rhinitis with chronic rhinosinusitis.,and if sinusitis and allergic rhinitis is addressed properly patients show good symptomatic improvement even without adenoidectomy.
None
No
No
No
I am an ENT surgeon routinely doing such surgeries and am a teaching faculty.