Submited on: 09 May 2013 04:12:36 AM GMT
Published on: 09 May 2013 05:44:56 AM GMT
 

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

    Proves the correlations between various hybrid viruses that are associated with HPV. Research explores the cure by vaccines, and these therapies may be improved by laser vaccines into the vagina. The injection is painless and uses no needles, and is no thicker than a strand of hair.


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

    Research is verifiable, and presently accurate. The claims are not novel, but founded upon verifiable research analysis.


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

    Yes, and I wish assist in the study if possible. I study cancer and familial viruses.

    I'm currently writing a research paper regarding HPV and other infectious STD's. I've done an extensive amount of research into the origins of various viruses that are cancers dating back to the SV-40 retrovirus that was identified in African Green Monkeys.

    There was forty viruses that were leaked into the population from the Polio Vaccine, don't believe me? I have an mp3 file of the documentation coming from the worlds leading vaccine manufacturers doctor.

    This revelation also came from a colleague of mine Dr. William John Martin PhD. It was admitted that cancer viruses leaked! Worlds leading vaccines were once, originated from monkey serum because of evolutionary biology.

    Dr. William John Martin PhD worked for the CDC and FDA. He and his wife were expert professors at the University of Southern California. I have progressed the research of inheritable diseases, as well as diseases affecting the zygotes that spreads viruses in the uterus. HPV viruses are complex.


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

    The development of better effective vaccines for HPV-16 etc. The most infectious of all HPV viruses can be so infectious that its in the walls of the vagina and is hard to remove from the immune system, unless you have a uterus based vaccine that is able to be pointed at patients organs using a laser vaccine.


  • 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?

    Project discussions were adequate from a literary standpoint.


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

    The proper procedures were conducted. Yes, the sources are great.


  • 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 could provide helpful information. Regarding alternative therapies!


  • 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 proper methodologies were performed and conducted.


  • Other Comments:

    Congratulations to helping eliminate a deadly cancer that plagues womankind.

  • 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:

    Infectious Disease Researcher

  • How to cite:  .HPV & Cytogenic Viruses [Intravaginal Laser Vaccine Methodology][Review of the article 'Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Dual Priming Oligonucleotide Technology And Its Clinical Efficacy in Cervical Cancer Management ' by Pawar M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002797
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The authors suggest that due to the increased incidence of cervical cancer in India, large scale population based screening of HPV should be performed so that patients with particular genotypes can be treated for the respective strain of HPV and follow-ed up for further cervical cancer screening if needed. The authors also highlight that knowing the strains of HPV that are prevalent in particular regions provides the knowledge of the regions in which the population would most benefit from HPV vaccination.

     

    They also suggest that DPO technology combined with conventional PCR should be used to perform these screens instead of other traditional techniques. 


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

    If population based HPV screens have not been performed in regions of India, this study provides novel public health information. Unfortunately, a sample size of 30 is too small to determine if the results presented are significant.


    DPO techonology combined with conventional PCR has been developed by companies including Seegene and Abbott Labs. Seegene sells an HPV screening kit called Anyplex™ II HPV28. It is not clear if the authors developed their assay in house or used this kit (since they reference Seegene in Figures 2 and 3). Thus the use of this technology for HPV screening is not novel.


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

    The authors do not reference any other population based HPV screens done in India or other nearby regions/countries. If these do not exist, it should be explicitly stated as this would suggest that this manuscript may describe the first such study. If this is not the case then a more thorough literature search and review needs to be performed and described in the introduction.


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

    A better explanation of the technology used is required as well as a much larger sample size ideally from several regions in the country.


  • 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?

    The methodology appears sound since the authors were able to identify the strains of HPV that patients were infected with, then categorize them accordingly into low and high risk groups for the development of cervical cancer. This data would influence the follow-up treatment regime for each patient. The authors do not identify whether this assay was developed in-house or if they used the Seegene kit suggested by the fact that they copy Figures 2 and 3 from the manufacturer.


  • 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?

    A larger sample size.


  • 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?

    If the paper is expanded to include larger sample sizes from various regions, then this would provide significant public health information.


  • Other Comments:

    There are many grammatical errors and typos within the manuscript. The discussion should focus more on the DPO technology and advocate for and explain why it should be used as the new gold standard for HPV screen. Figures 2 and 3 are also low-quality and should ideally be an original image by the authors instead of being copied from Seegene.

  • 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:

    Virologist with experience in population based studies.

  • How to cite:  Palmer S .Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Dual Priming Oligonucleotide Technology And Its Clinical Efficacy in Cervical Cancer Management[Review of the article 'Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Dual Priming Oligonucleotide Technology And Its Clinical Efficacy in Cervical Cancer Management ' by Pawar M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002767
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Genotyping HPV by DPO technique thereby will be beneficial in vaccine prescription, efficiency in  cervical cancer management.


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

    The number of cases taken in for the study is too less to achieve any statistical significance. The authors haven’t mentioned the methods for grouping as LGSIL & HGSIL.

    Primer details, procurement, instrumentation details are missing. Assay details as well are missing


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

    More input on literature review needed pertaining to the geographical area where the study was conducted, prevalence, awareness of the diseases could throw more light on this present study


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

    As mentioned more sample numbers, patient history, detailed methodology will provide a better avenue on this paper


  • 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?

    Certainly not. Details on assay procedures, primer designs, instrumenation on PCR will be more beneficial.


  • 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?

    The authors need to include the following  more samples numbers,  case history details, assay procedures, PCR-primer details, more literature report pertaining to Asia/India, prevailing scenario, and lacunae existing. To authenticate the use of DPO technique for the efficient treatment and management of cervical cancer.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    Have considerable experience on HIV Vaccine study

  • How to cite:  Mani A .Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Dual Priming Oligonucleotide Technology And Its Clinical Efficacy in Cervical Cancer Management[Review of the article 'Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Dual Priming Oligonucleotide Technology And Its Clinical Efficacy in Cervical Cancer Management ' by Pawar M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002761
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The authors have studied the prevalence of HPV among patients presenting OBG&GYN of SMI hospital: The purpose of the study is clear and the methods look appropriate for the study aims to determine the prevalent genotypes that can help in preparation of vaccines: the study group included contained  Patients showing low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL) and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSILS) were highest in numbers

     

    The authors claim that  Patients with LGSIL positive case harbored HPV type 16 where as patients with HGSIL were HPV type 16, HPV type 18, HPV mixed types and HPV type 11 , where as the case with cervitis harbored HPV type 16

     

    these results indicate that among the positives all are considered high risk to develop cervical /other genital types of cancer.


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

    The main drawback of the aper is the number of cases included: i strongly believe that this sample size can lead to no strict conclusions: also the authors have not detailed on the incliusion and exclusion criteria for patients: methods performed before genotyping.


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

    Authors have generally indicated the catigiries of genotypes. they grouped in high risk and low risk: further authors should have concentrated in finding similar literature from either India/ Asia or other parts of world: Introduction needs some more literature survey.


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

    Just by doing 30 samples and that too all positive by papsmear were harbouring high risk genotypes: its becomes difficult to accept the results.


  • 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?

    Not commenting on methodology


  • 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?

    Paper though provides some information needs a large revision before considering its results: sample size is too small to comment on the practicality of the results


  • Other Comments:

    Very poorly written paper with inadequate sample size: methodology, demographic details of  the patient, their  selection criteria, laboratory procedure/pathological observation in detail of all the 30 recruited patients is necessary.

     

    Results are inadeqate to be able to comment further

  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Kandi V .Epidemiology and Genotyping of Human Papilloma Virus: A North Indian Study[Review of the article 'Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Dual Priming Oligonucleotide Technology And Its Clinical Efficacy in Cervical Cancer Management ' by Pawar M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002721
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse