Submited on: 20 Aug 2013 04:40:16 PM GMT
Published on: 21 Aug 2013 02:35:38 PM GMT
 
Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: The diamide and glutaraldehyde effect
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 31 Oct 2013 01:15:58 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The effect of diamide and glutaraldehide on the cell deformation index of human and ovine red blood cells by using a microfluidic system composed of a microchanel with a hyperbolic-shaped contraction is evaluated. The results are important in certain cases related to the blood rheology and related diseases.


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

    The claims seems to be novel.


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

    Yes, they are.


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

    Drawbacks are mentioned in the comments section.


  • 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?

    Partially. See the comments. 


  • 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?

    Yes. See the comments. 


  • 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 deep investigations are necessary in order to reach the outstanding level of the investigated issue 


  • Other Comments:

    - The images processing can easily induce artefacts and wrong conclusions. Therefore, the presentation of the most important steps the authors performed for getting the final image should be described and illustrated. It would be really helpful for reader the mentioning of the most important drawbacks of the performed assessment.

    - Errors bar should be included in the representation from Figs. 6 and 7.

  • 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:

    Research articles I published in biomedical field.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: The diamide and glutaraldehyde effect[Review of the article 'Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: the diamide and glutaraldehyde effect ' by Lima R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(10):WMCRW002886
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This paper presents the effect of diamide and glutaraldehyde on the cell deformability index of red blood cells in a strong extensional flow.  The results bring information that can be helpful in understanding and predicting hematological diseases.


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

    The claims are relevant since the most of the works published in the literature focus on the response of the cells under pure shear flow whereas those concerning the flow of the cells under strong extensional flow conditions are scarce.


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

    In general, the claims are placed in the context of previous works published in the 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?

    The methodology is valid and details about it are also offered. Although, the authors should give the positions of the sections where the measurements were performed relative, for example, to the plane of the abrupt expansion, for future reproductions of the experiments. 


  • 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?

    The use of microchannels having different Hencky strains generating different extensional and shear flow fields would bring additional information that may improve the paper.


  • 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. The paper presents interesting results in the subject but there are same points that could be investigated in detail, namely flows in which different shear and extensional effects could be attained as well as a more thorough discussion of the results explaining the improvements that this investigation presents when compared to previous findings.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have been working on the extensional flow of complex fluids, in particular the extensional flow of blood analogue solutions, and have published papers on that topic.

  • How to cite:  Sousa P .Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: the diamide and glutaraldehyde effect[Review of the article 'Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: the diamide and glutaraldehyde effect ' by Lima R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(9):WMCRW002865
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This paper studies the deformabilities of RBCs exposed to gluaraldehyde and diamide.  The results stated are of great relevance for future studies in rheology and diseases associated.


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

    The claims are novel.


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

    NA


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

    A statistical review could be added to support the result interpretation as well as a in deep comparison with other methods found in the literature.


  • 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 could be reproduced with the methodology described in the Materials and Methods section.


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    None

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    None

  • How to cite:  Joao A .This paper quantifies the deformability of red blood cells as exposed to diamide and glutaraldehyde. This is an important result for those working with blood rheology and related diseases.[Review of the article 'Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: the diamide and glutaraldehyde effect ' by Lima R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002854
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This paper quantifies the deformability of red blood cells as exposed to diamide and glutaraldehyde. This is an important result for those working with blood rheology and related diseases.


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

    The claims seems to be novel.


  • 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?

    Partially. A statistical analysis section is necessary to support the discussion and to allow interpretation of barcharts.


  • 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, although the authors could be more explicit in the image analysis section.


  • 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 statistical analysis is necessary to support the discussion and conclusions.


  • 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. The literature review is not sufficient to assess what are the major findings as related to previous literature.


  • Other Comments:

    Specific points:

    1) Materials and Methods: A Statistical Analysis section is missing.

    2) Results and Discussion: The first paragraph would be better if positioned under Materials and Methods section.

    3) Results and Discussion: Results are not convincing because of the lack of statistical analysis.

    4) Discussion: It is not clear what improvement this study provided over previous studies on this topic.

    5) Discussion: Limitations of this work could be discussed. For instance, it is possible that red blood cells rotate and the axis measures are not the actual axes' lengths? 

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • 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:

    I have published several articles on vascular modeling and pulse wave analysis.

  • How to cite:  Ferreira A S.Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: The diamide and glutaraldehyde effect[Review of the article 'Red Blood Cells deformability index assessment in a hyperbolic microchannel: the diamide and glutaraldehyde effect ' by Lima R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002851
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse