Submited on: 26 Apr 2014 07:31:56 PM GMT
Published on: 28 Apr 2014 05:41:49 AM GMT
 
Retroperitoneal teratomas a diagnostic dilemma
Posted by Prof. Sanjeev K Gupta on 16 Jun 2014 07:09:53 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The main claim of the paper is that these are unusual tumours in adults and may cause diagnostic difficulties. Moreover in the present case the patient presented with low back-ache


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

    Presentation of a retroperitoneal tumour as low back ache is unusual. Teratomas are more common in the younger age group. In the elderly, if a teratoma is present, it s likely to be malignant and more likely to recur after surgical excision


  • 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?

    Its a case report. Perhaps follow-up data can be incorporated in greater detail. Were the tumour markers done


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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 Comments:

    Reasonably well written but report of a single case.

  • 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:

    Working as a faculty member in a teaching Department of General Surgery (tertiary care centre) for the last 25 years

  • How to cite:  Gupta S K.Retroperitoneal teratomas a diagnostic dilemma[Review of the article 'Retroperitoneal Teratomas A Diagnostic Dilemma ' by Sahkhe M].WebmedCentral 2014;5(6):WMCRW003074
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A Doss. Review on Retroperitoneal Teratomas A Diagnostic Dilemma.
Posted by Dr. Arockia X Doss on 12 May 2014 10:15:36 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The authors have a clinical case report on a rare retroperitoneal mass with radiopathological correlation.


  • 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?

    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?

    Not applicable


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

    Yes


  • 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 case series of similar cases with long follow up would help. 


  • 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


  • Other Comments:

    This is an interesting case report that reminds us of a rare and important differential diagnosis.

    The patient has a benign lesion that is locally causing mass effect eg: compression to the renal outflow tract.

    The operative images are of good quality although labelling is incorrect.

    The radiological figures and descriptions could have been more clearer with attention to the coverage of the mass on all figures, the inclusion in the legend of the plane of imaging and techniques of scanning. Also the image qualities of the imaging studies are substandard.

    In future the authors should ensure imaging illustrations are of better quality. This would certainly add value in such papers.

  • 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:

    Interventional Radiologist

  • How to cite:  Doss A X.A Doss. Review on Retroperitoneal Teratomas A Diagnostic Dilemma.[Review of the article 'Retroperitoneal Teratomas A Diagnostic Dilemma ' by Sahkhe M].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003047
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Well written report of an unusual and interesting case
Posted by Prof. Pietro G Calo on 28 Apr 2014 03:14:15 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The authors report a case of an unusual retroperitoneal teratoma detected on magnetic resonance imaging during the workup of low backache in a 55-year-old male. This paper includes the evaluation and treatment of this condition and a review of the literature. The paper is moderately important describing a very unusual case and the diagnostic difficulties related


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
    It is a report not particularly original but interesting also considered the diagnostic tests that have been carried

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

    The claims are properly placed in the context of the previous literature


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

    The results support the claims


  • 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?

    A protocol is not provided


  • 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, its description is detailed and the diagnostic tests performed could be reproduced.


  • 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 other additional informations nor other experiments are needed


  • 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?

    I think this paper is not outstanding in its discipline, while it is a very good work. The case is unusual but not exceptional, but it is interesting and well written.


  • Other Comments:

    The report is well written and very interesting. Many diagnostic tests were performed and are documented. The case is very unusual but not exceptional

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    [Primary retroperitoneal tumors. Our experience]. Calo PG, Congiu A, Ferreli C, Nicolosi A, Tarquini A. Minerva Chir. 1994 Jan-Feb;49(1-2):43-9. Italian. PMID: 7516058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Experience in surgical oncology

  • How to cite:  Calo P G.Well written report of an unusual and interesting case[Review of the article 'Retroperitoneal Teratomas A Diagnostic Dilemma ' by Sahkhe M].WebmedCentral 2014;5(4):WMCRW003038
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse