Submited on: 06 Jan 2014 02:10:14 PM GMT
Published on: 07 Jan 2014 05:23:48 AM GMT
 
Review of the article on orthotics in OA knee.
Posted by Mr. Sanjay S Deo on 21 Feb 2014 07:52:27 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The use of said orthotic devise in all the cases of OA knee irrespective of the grade of the OA is too much to expect.


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

    The claim of this paper is novel in itself. The claim of getting a overall good result in all cases of OA kneewithout blood study is difficult to believe. 


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

    The claims are not properly placed as only getting good results on the basis of shoe insert in cases where gross triple compartment OA is evident on Xrays requires further double blind studies & long term follow up. 


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

    The evidence should be in the form of getting knee scores before & after the orthotic device use. Also the comparitive improvements in pain scores sh'd be shown.


  • 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?

    Neither the protocol is given nor randomised control studies done.

     

     

     


  • 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 not given. 


  • 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 paper sh'd have given proper scintific comparison between various modalities of orthotic devices. Why this perticular orthotic was chosen & what is the basis of calling uniformally goos results?


  • 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 paper is not outstanding as it does not compare the different modalities of orthotic devices & why this device was chosen. No inclusion or exclusion criterias laid down. All patients with OA knee who were included without any clear guidelines depending on clinical condition in these patients. 


  • Other Comments:

    No additional comments.

  • 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 am working as Orthopedic surgeon since last 20 years. The problem of Osteoarthritis in indian population is very common & by just giving shoe inserts in all I dont think we can tackle it effectively.

  • How to cite:  Deo S S.Review of the article on orthotics in OA knee. [Review of the article 'Microcellular Rubber Insole in Management of Knee Osteoarthritis ' by Deane A].WebmedCentral 2014;5(2):WMCRW003008
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Microcellular Rubber Insole in Management of Knee Osteoarthritis
Posted by Dr. Sumit Arora on 17 Feb 2014 08:01:40 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis.


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

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis.


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

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.


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

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.


  • 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?

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.


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

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.


  • 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 study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.


  • 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 study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.


  • Other Comments:

    The study presents the usefulness of microcellular rubber insole for the management of knee osteoarthritis.

    It appears to be a good adjunct in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Firm conclusions can not be made as the presented follow-up is only 6 months.

  • 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:

    Yes

  • How to cite:  Arora S .Microcellular Rubber Insole in Management of Knee Osteoarthritis[Review of the article 'Microcellular Rubber Insole in Management of Knee Osteoarthritis ' by Deane A].WebmedCentral 2014;5(2):WMCRW003006
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse