Submited on: 09 Aug 2013 04:39:20 AM GMT
Published on: 09 Aug 2013 06:28:16 AM GMT
 

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

    Extra pulmonary tuberculosis might be of releveance in long standing soft tissue swelling of unknown aetiology


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

    Not particularly, and the authors imply that in their cited literature.


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

    Actually, I have serious concerns about NMT mycobateria claimed in this work, since there is no evidence, nor any mention of bacterial identification. isolation or collection. Therefore, how can anyone claim a certain bacterium is responsible for an infection if there were no bacteriological study? This is pure speculation.


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

    Very form that. Without proper bacterial isolation from the infection site, biochemical and/or genetic identification, and arguments made around NMT infections are anedoctal.


  • 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?

    This is one major shortcoming. The protocols provide are too general, and there is still a lot of methods that should be explained. Tissue PCR is the same as nothing. Which primers, how was the DNA obtained, waht were the cycling condition, were are the Gels from the PCR reactions?


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

    The methods section will let anyone who tries to replicate any experiments completely unable to do so. Not a single detail is provided.


  • 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 authors should provide the PCR for genotyping and the appropriate controls.


  • 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?

    At the current stage, this paper is very weak, both suffering from lack of proof of the arguments and conclusions drawn, but also suffering from very weak presentation, poor punctuation, grammar inconsistencies.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • 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:

    Experienced microbiologist

  • How to cite:  Ramos C G.Extra Pulmonary Tuberculosis an unusual presentation[Review of the article 'Non Tuberculous Mycobacterial soft tissue swelling in an immunocompetent Patient. ' by Kale A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(9):WMCRW002857
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    We should suspect extra pulmonary tuberculosis as a differential diagnosis of a soft tissue swelling of undiagnosed etiology in a patient from endemic region.


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

    Yes


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

    No


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

    Not convincingly


  • 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?

    Not relevant


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

    No


  • 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?

    Article is not well written. It needs to be modified.


  • 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. Not a properly written article.


  • Other Comments:

    Article is not well written. Abstract should not include any numbering. Abstract is not the part of article where copy paste materials from introduction should be pasted. Authors have not evaluated the case properly as it is not mentioned in the article wheather it was typical or atypical mycobacterium. Discussion part is not well written, it should include more discussion on previous research work on this topic.

  • 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:

    M.D.(MEDICINE)

  • How to cite:  Ghosh G C.Extra Pulmonary Tuberculosis an unusual presentation[Review of the article 'Non Tuberculous Mycobacterial soft tissue swelling in an immunocompetent Patient. ' by Kale A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(8):WMCRW002836
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Soft tissue swelling in leg is an unusual presentation of Tb


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

    Not novel but uncommon yes.


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

    No


  • 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?

    Source of infection not mentioned; from where and how he acuired Tb eg family history, exposure to birds, bovine  milk etc. ?

    Blood investigations- blood count, ESR, not mentioned.

    HIV reactive status mentioned in discussion only in passing; not in case report.

    Photographs donot have legends and arrows. illustration 2 photo is blurred, not good quality.

    ATT given as daily or as DOTS?


  • 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?

    As it is rare I would like to discuss with my residents.


  • Other Comments:

    It is not written properly, seems to have hurried through. The html version is incomplete- uploading problems than pdf version.

  • 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:

    treating Tb since a long time. Supervised thesis on Tb.

  • How to cite:  Gohil J R.Extra Pulmonary Tuberculosis an unusual presentation[Review of the article 'Non Tuberculous Mycobacterial soft tissue swelling in an immunocompetent Patient. ' by Kale A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(8):WMCRW002833
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 mains claims are important, but do not appear in Abstract or Introduction.

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

    The claims are novel, but, no mention. 


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

    Yes, but references are scarce.


  • 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?

    It is Case report. 


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

    No, the paper does no offer enough detalils of its 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?

    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?

    Yes, because although extra pulmonary tuberculosis is rare, it should be considered as one of the differential diagnosis in a case of long standing soft tissue swelling of unknown aetiology.


  • Other Comments:

    1. The introduction should take no references.
    2. There are typos.
    3. They do not explain the meaning of the acronym: USG, FNAC and HPE.
    4. No mention that atypical mycobacterium was found.
    5. In the figures of MRI, no point well defined tubular structure in tubcutaneous plane.

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

    Guadalupe García Elorriaga , Carlos Gracida Osorno , Guadalupe Carrillo Montes , César González Bonilla. Clinical usefulness of the nested polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Salud Pública de México. 2009; 51(3):240-245.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I worked for 13 years about TB molecular diagnosis.

  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Extra Pulmonary Tuberculosis an unusual presentation[Review of the article 'Non Tuberculous Mycobacterial soft tissue swelling in an immunocompetent Patient. ' by Kale A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(8):WMCRW002830
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Extrapulmonary tuberculosis
Posted by Dr. Venkataramana Kandi on 09 Aug 2013 10:01:04 AM GMT

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

    This paper is very poorly written by the author. This paper does not include the details of the case method of diagnosis and many other details. It is a topic of public health importance that need to addressed in a better way rather than writing like this with out actually elaborating on the case. the author should follw criteria for witing a case communication that should at least include introduction: case details/presentation: discussion and not abstract and conclusion


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

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    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:

    Dear publisher

     

    At this point of time i would like to enlighten you on how will this platform (post publication peer review) will be misutilized as the present paper has been irresponsibly written

     

    This paper has nothing in it and i belive it is just written for the sake of numbers of publication

     

    We must discourage such submission

     

    I suggest all these papers should be atleast seen by an expert before being published and those papers with bad reviews must be immediately withdrawn from online.

     

    I have experienced such papers before eg: papers on ferripyoverdine receptor and Pseudomonas which are a lot similar papers.

     

    How you consider my opinions

     

    regards

     

    Dr Venkataramana Kandi

  • 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:

    PhD in Medical Microbiology FRCPath under review

  • How to cite:  Kandi V .Extrapulmonary tuberculosis[Review of the article 'Non Tuberculous Mycobacterial soft tissue swelling in an immunocompetent Patient. ' by Kale A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(8):WMCRW002828
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 author presents one case report. The main claim is that in Tuberculosis endemic regions, one should have a high index of suspicion for tuberculosis when encountering any refractory lesion.


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

    No


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

    The present report has not reviewed the literature adequately to achieve this aspect.


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

    More review of literature is required to support the author's case report, particularly if atypical mycobacteria can be labeled as extrapulmonary tuberculosis, as has been done in the present instance.


  • 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?

    Not applicable


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

    Even for a case report the approach is a bit sketchy. Author should incorporate summary of the case in the abstract. Citation to reference should be removed from the abstract.


  • 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 more thorough reveiw of literature would 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?

    Not outstanding. However, can be a learning point particularly for those who are not from endemic regions, and likely to miss an occassional case of extrapulmonary tuberculosis, among an immigrant from an endemic country.


  • Other Comments:

    Opinion of a microbiologist would be desirable particulary to clarify whether atypical mycobacterium can be taken as diagnosis of tuberculosis.

  • Competing interests:
    The author and the reviewer are from the same institution.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Editorial: Tuberculosis old war - new battles. Med J D Y Patil Univ (under publication)

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Reviewing articles for peer reviewed indexed medical journals (PubMed/Scopus) for past 15 years. Editing a medical journal for past one year as editor in chief. Holding post graduate qualification in Community Medicine and post doctoral level training in Clinical Epidemiology. Have published over 90 papers in peer reviewed journals.

  • How to cite:  Banerjee A .Extra Pulmonary Tuberculosis: an unusual presentation[Review of the article 'Non Tuberculous Mycobacterial soft tissue swelling in an immunocompetent Patient. ' by Kale A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(8):WMCRW002826
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse