Submited on: 03 Sep 2014 11:14:17 PM GMT
Published on: 04 Sep 2014 10:22:41 AM GMT
 
Acute pyelonephritis in pregnancy
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 18 Sep 2014 04:20:15 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The author had discussed the maternal and fetal complications of acute pyelonephritis in detail


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

    The caims are novel.


  • 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?

    The results claim he support


  • 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?

    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?

    The paper deserves inclusion


  • Other Comments:

    Satisfactory paper

  • 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 a British qualified obstetrician and gnaecologist

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Acute pyelonephritis in pregnancy[Review of the article 'Acute respiratory distress syndrome in acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy: ten-year review ' by Fernandez A].WebmedCentral 2014;5(9):WMCRW003109
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Acute pyelonepritisis quite common renal infection in pregnancy . it can lead to ARDS


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

    No.All standard text books  have details...


  • 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?

    No protocol.


  • 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?

    Details of method of analysis. needs to focus on study with title as pyenephritis in pregnancy. or ARDS in pregnancy


  • 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 methodology, less patient. no statistical significance


  • Other Comments:

    Please focus on one topic ARDS or Pyelonephritis in pregnancy only.

  • 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:

    50 days of any year i manage the high risk critical all cases with medical disorders in pregnancy in labour along with 50 days of OPD for AN care in a tertiary care institute with a teaching hospital, which is the terminal referral centre of government of maharashtra catering to 2.5 crore population.

  • How to cite:  Salvi P P.Acute respiratory distress syndrome in acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy: ten-year review[Review of the article 'Acute respiratory distress syndrome in acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy: ten-year review ' by Fernandez A].WebmedCentral 2014;5(9):WMCRW003108
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
ARDS in AP during Pregnancy
Posted by Dr. Mohammad Othman on 04 Sep 2014 05:23:53 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    It is critical to treate AP aggressively, early and in hospital sittings, because it is known for the wide variety of complications.


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

    No, not novel. Every paper on AP confirmed that, even mentioned by the authors, but the review of 10 years cases is the main subject accompanied with the literature review.


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

    Yes it is, but not detailed enough.


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

    Yes, but loads of details are needed to show the amount of effort spent in this paper.


  • 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 protocol provided, but it is needed.


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

    No methodology mentioned, it is essential for any review and for the explanation of the study.


  • 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, extremely more details are needed. This would improve the paper from acceptable to perfect.


  • 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, because of the lack of the details, in the best this paper can be ranked as acceptable, and I would not publish it without asking for more details to be incorporated. This paper in it's condition now for the untrained eye does not pass for even personal opinion. 


  • Other Comments:

    My advice to authors, incorporate more details to show your effort, work and to completely support your results and conclusions.

  • 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 Author, Editor and Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist

  • How to cite:  Othman M .ARDS in AP during Pregnancy[Review of the article 'Acute respiratory distress syndrome in acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy: ten-year review ' by Fernandez A].WebmedCentral 2014;5(9):WMCRW003102
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse