Submited on: 20 Nov 2013 01:30:33 AM GMT
Published on: 20 Nov 2013 05:01:27 AM GMT
 

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

    Retrospective analysis of Oral squamous cell carcinoma cases during 1990-2000


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

    Data is of 1990-2000, almost 13 years old data.Would have been nice if data was taken of 2001-2010


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

    Retrospective study


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

    Other evidence Not required as this is restrospecive study based on reliable histopathology report


  • 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?

    Authors need to revise paper thoroughly keeping following in mind

    1. If available, get data for 2001-2010 for updated data

    2. Apply simple statistical applications, some bar charts, year wise line diagram

    3. In addition to prevalence, this study requires incidence (population based)

    4. More information on demography

    5. P value for significance,when compare different groups (age/sex) with prevalence/incidence of cancer

    6. Discussion is very weak. Try to discuss in detail with other studies of same or neighbouring region or other parts of the world. Simply stating agree with literature is not sufficient. Associated risk factors with different age groups and gender would be interseting may throw more light.

    7. Authors recommendation based on study is required ..like what they want to convey by this study including health or any other intervention measures required

    8. References are not sufficient.

    9.Conclusion part is missing. It is just repetition of results. Authors must write about their question/purpose of the study and ultimately what is final outcome of this important research

    10 Overall, a very important study has been made very ordinary because of poor presentation.

    11. The data is valuable, if properly done , will be an excellent 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?

    Very important data, But paper requires proper presentation


  • Other Comments:

    If revised properly, this would be an excellenet paper.

  • 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:

    Ph.D. with 25 years of teaching, diagnostic, research experience. Reviewed many such papers earlier (under epidemiology of cancers).

  • How to cite:  Naik D .Retrospective study of the frequency of oral squamous cell carcinoma in the population of volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil[Review of the article 'Retrospective study of the frequency of oral squamous cell carcinoma in the population of volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ' by Cury S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(12):WMCRW002901
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse