Submited on: 05 Jul 2014 05:37:43 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Jul 2014 05:40:37 AM GMT
 

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

    This paper makes no claims because it is just a review of the drug discovery, development, and trials of Xeloda.


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

    No these claims are not novel because it is a review article. The intent of this article is not to make novel claims.

    1. P. Reichardt, G. von Minckwitz, P. C. Thuss-Patience, W. Jonat, H. Kölbl, F. Jänicke, D. G. Kieback, W. Kuhn, A. E Schindler, S. Mohrmann, M. Kaufmann, and H. J. Lück. "Multicenter phase II study of oral capecitabine (Xeloda) in patients with metastatic breast cancer relapsing after treatment with a taxane-containing therapy" Ann Oncol (2003) 14 (8): 1227-1233 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdg346


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

    Yes the claims are properly placed but more articles refering to the clinical studies would have been beneficial.


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

    Yes the results support the claims. Some more evidence such as statistical data would have been beneficial for all three clinical studies. Useful data would be tumor shrinkage, percent of drug that got into the tissue, specificity of the drug to its target and sales of Xedole would help support the claim that Xedola is a better treatment option than fluorouracil plus leucovorin.


  • 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?

    Protocol was not provided since this article was just a review article of Xedole. Therefore, the author would not have seen deviations in trials. 


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

    The methodology was valid but since this a review article, it is not intended to have enough specific details to make the synthesis and trials reproducible. 


  • 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 the pharmodynamics of this drug would have been very helpful especially when compared to fluorouracil plus leucovorin, since it was competing against it. Also, citing the sales of Xedole vs. fluorouracil plus leucovorin for colon cancer treatment would help show that Xedole is better for colon cancer treatment if is it given to patients more than fluorouracil plus leucovorin.


  • 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?

    This paper does have very strong section but there are some details that are lacking that if included, would help this paper be presentable. Some of those details are the sales of Xedole, mechanism of action, clearance time, and tumor impact.


  • Other Comments:

    The introduction was really strong and the article flowed very well. I really liked the order that this article was written and felt that the order of the sections really helped this article. 

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

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky currently studying biopharmaceutical sciences in chemical engineering. I have been advised how to review a journal article.

  • How to cite:  Lindsey A .Review of A Critical Review of the Drug Discovery Process and Properties of Capecitabine (Xeloda)[Review of the article 'A Critical Review of the Drug Discovery Process and Properties of Capecitabine (Xeloda) ' by Prashad N].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003170
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 article is a review about the drug discovery process and some properties including synthetic synthesis of Xeloda, animal testing and clinical trials of Capecitabine. This gives whole information on drug discovery and development.


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

    No, This is a review article so it is hard to say these claims novel.

     

    Here are some related articles.

     

    1. 
     

     


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

    Yes. I think the claims are properly placed and previous literature was used adequately.


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

    No, this is a review article so does not have any room for the secific results.


  • 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?

    No, this is a review article so deviations can not be observed.


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

    Yes, I think valid methodology was followed.


  • 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?

    Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data including half life, excretion, metabolism and protein binding can improve this review article.

     

    Followings are related articles for improvement of this paper.

    1. 
     


  • 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?

    For better review article on this sort of claims, i think more pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics parameters should be needed.


  • Other Comments:

    This article is meaningful to address information about discovery process and other properties at an article.

    Some source of information about PK/PD would make this type of article better.

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

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    .

  • How to cite:  Lee M .Review on A critical Review of the Drug Discovery Process and Properties of Capecitabine (Xeloda)[Review of the article 'A Critical Review of the Drug Discovery Process and Properties of Capecitabine (Xeloda) ' by Prashad N].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003160
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 article is review based and there are no claims made in the article. It is a good attempt to put the information related to drug discovery and development at one place


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

    No, due to the nature of article, there are no such claims that are novel.

    There is some space for improvemnts and the related article for preclinical studies related:

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11081570

     

    and for discovery and development related:

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10630095

     

     and related to pharmacology, please refer

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10097741


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

    Yes, the ateempt make is good, but there is a lot of room for the improvement.

    There is more information avaliable in terms of PK and ADME of the drug, which should be in corporated


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

    There are no results section through the article, and there is no claim made in the article


  • 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?

    As this is a review, there will be not deviations


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

    Yes, but more could have done, interms of search criteria, inclusion and exclusion criteria etc.


  • 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?

    There is a lot of information related to ADME (lag time and absorption rate constant for Absorption, protein binding, blood: plasma ratio, and half life for Distribution, involvement of CYP enzymes for Metabilism, and a little information is provided for Excretion)

     

    The non compartmental or compartmental analysis would have provide a better understanding of the pharmacokinetics.

     

    There is no information about the pharmacodynamics of the drug


  • 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?

    More information is needed for ADME, maximum tolerated dose, and other PK and PD parameters to use  as a souce of information


  • Other Comments:

    There is a space for improvement in terms of scientifically and grammer wise too. there are many instances, where space is needed in between two words.

  • 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:

    I have about 3 years of experience in ADME/PK/PD and drug development

  • How to cite:  Gollen R .A review on A Critical Review of the Drug Discovery Process and Properties of Capecitabine (Xeloda)[Review of the article 'A Critical Review of the Drug Discovery Process and Properties of Capecitabine (Xeloda) ' by Prashad N].WebmedCentral 2014;5(8):WMCRW003091
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse