Submited on: 04 Jun 2013 03:29:41 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Jun 2013 07:01:06 AM GMT
 
Oklahoma Tornadoes - A review
Posted by Dr. Simon B Thompson on 05 Jun 2013 09:04:57 AM GMT

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

    Importance of place following real disaster particularly the Oklahoma Tornadoes.


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

    No, but interesting in this context.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    No.


  • 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, but it adds to the literature in the field.


  • Other Comments:

    I found this an interesting and timely article that is appropriately placed. I wonedr if the author has read my work in the area on PTSD - Thompson, SBN (2011,2012,2013) Psychology of trauma: clinical reviews,case histories, research. Blackwell-Harvard-Academic ?

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Psychology of trauma (Thompson, 2013), cited above.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Treatment of trauma.

  • How to cite:  Thompson S B.Oklahoma Tornadoes - A review[Review of the article 'Psychosocial recovery after the Oklahoma City Tornadoes ' by Prewitt Diaz J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002758
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 main claim was to discuss psychosocial issues and remedial measures for the citizen of Oklahoma who were victimized by Tornadoes.


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

    It was a commentary, not a research article.


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

    Yes, they are. Though, more literature should have been given for describing rationale of the topic.


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

    Not Applicable. As it was a commentary only.


  • 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?

    Indeed, if author would have proved it via some researches then randomized controlled trial must have been done.


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

    Not Applicable. As it was a commentary only.


  • 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?

    Author should have shared research based work on the similar 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?

    Not Applicable. As it was a commentary only.


  • 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:

    The article belonged to my area of interest.

  • How to cite:  Hussain M .Review on Psychosocial recovery after the Oklahoma City Tornadoes[Review of the article 'Psychosocial recovery after the Oklahoma City Tornadoes ' by Prewitt Diaz J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002757
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse