Submited on: 13 Feb 2013 06:46:44 PM GMT
Published on: 14 Feb 2013 06:35:23 AM GMT
 
Surgical Managemnet of Undescended Testis: A Two-Year Practice Audit
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 17 Mar 2013 04:12:59 PM GMT

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

    The authors presented their approach to the treatment of undescended testes. They analyzed the results and compare their data with the published literature. 


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

    No.  The outcomes and conclusions generally support widely accepted recommendations for the treatment of this disorder. 


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

    Yes, the analyzed data was methodically compared to published literature.


  • 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?

    Yes, the paper included statistical analyses and comparison of surgical methods.


  • 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?

    It would be very beneficial to know if there wascombined urologic pathology or disorders of sexual development (DSD) in this group of patient. Valuable information could be the fact about possibly preoperative or postoperative supportive hormonal treatment because there is no worldwideconsensus on this topic.


  • 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 data about the treatment of undescended testicle in the single center was thoroughlyanalyzed and superbly presented.


  • Other Comments:

    Presented results compared favorably with those in published literature.  The authors emphasizeimportance of early surgical intervention. They conclude that delayed surgery gives a poor chance for success as they noted that the median age for surgical intervention for testes that lost volume was significantly higher than the overall group.A longer follow up of each group of patient would be more conclusive.

  • 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:

    Professor of pediatric surgery in tertiary surgery center.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Surgical Managemnet of Undescended Testis: A Two-Year Practice Audit[Review of the article 'Surgical Management of Undescended Testis: A Two-Year Practice Audit ' by Alsaywid B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002613
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Surgical Management of Undescended Testis
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 14 Mar 2013 11:13:26 PM GMT

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

    Main claim is audit of surgical management of undescended  testis.claim is important because by doing audit we can improve results of surgery.


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

    Actually claim is audit but authors did not compare results before audit and after audit which is usually main theme of any audit.Otherwise just comparing results with international literature is not an audit


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

    Yes properly plaaced


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

    Results need also latest reference of last three years and also some local references


  • 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?

    protocol is provided


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

    Yes it is valid


  • 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. Abstract is not arranged in structured manner
    2. Introduction is too long.
    3. Conclusion needs further elaboration
    4. Recent references should be added
    5. How is it possible that this article was submitted on 13 feb and publishing on 14th feb


  • 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


  • Other Comments:

    Overall this is good effort by author but still needs further improvement to compare pre and post audit results to give benefits to patients regarding decrease in morbidity.

  • Competing interests:
    I will also do audit regarding this subject in our hospital to improve the results
  • 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:

    As consultant pediatric surgeon undescended testis and inguinal hernia are most commonly performed operations by me

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Surgical Management of Undescended Testis[Review of the article 'Surgical Management of Undescended Testis: A Two-Year Practice Audit ' by Alsaywid B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002610
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Surgical Audit of UDT
Posted by Mr. Krishna Kumar Govindarajan on 22 Feb 2013 10:24:14 AM GMT

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

    To assess the pre op evaluation, op findings & post op outcome and compare the data with literature


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

    No


  • 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?

    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?

    NA


  • 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, the data recording reflects a complete and through compilation


  • Other Comments:

    Sincere appreciation to the author for an exhaustive data collection and presentation.

    1. Is there an existing protocol for UDT with regard to age at surgery, pre op investigations, etc
    2. Can the data be compared to the similar national audits as well ?
    3. What about the associations of bilateral udt - like DSD, other endocrinological problems
    4. What about the referral pattern (seen by gp / paediatrician) ?
    5. Were any investigations performed in these children ?

  • 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:

    As a practising Paediatric Surgeon the undescended testis is one of the commonest problems in the clinic.

  • How to cite:  Govindarajan K .Surgical Audit of UDT[Review of the article 'Surgical Management of Undescended Testis: A Two-Year Practice Audit ' by Alsaywid B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002530
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse