Submited on: 04 Nov 2014 05:59:52 PM GMT
Published on: 06 Nov 2014 12:29:45 PM GMT
 

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

    The paper claims the validity of using eGFR and AKINs criteria rather than a single Creatinine estimation to detect AKI in postoperative patients at an early stage

    The claim is valid and justifiable.


  • 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?

    No deviations


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

    Valid and methodology appropriate for this 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?

    A case control study can be conducted in future and more specific marker like Cystatin C can add value to this study 


  • 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, nonetheless it is valid and clinically relevant to detect AKI at an early stage


  • Other Comments:

    This paper needs revision in the following:

    1. Language revision and refinement

    2. The pre- and postoperative values of Hb, Creatinine and potassium shown in tables 1 and 2 are differing which needs to be looked into.

    3. There is a variation in the proportion of AKI cases shown by eGFR, AKIN and SCr between the bar graph and the values shown in results section of the paper

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

    In the capacity of a clinical biochemist

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    In the capacity of a clinical biochemist

  • How to cite:  Srikumar S .Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria[Review of the article 'Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria ' by Gopalakrishna K].WebmedCentral 2014;5(11):WMCRW003136
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 paper depend on level of s.creatinine in cut off level 1.4mg/dl in age group between 18-78years and this difference in age has influence on serum level of creatinine as aging has negative effect on serum creatinine level




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

    The eGFR also is age dependent since the study group has wide age group so the same parameter as serum creatinine 


  • 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?

    To decrease the bias in the reading control group were needed


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

    yes valid


  • 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 need


  • 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:

    NA

  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Ewadh M .Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria[Review of the article 'Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria ' by Gopalakrishna K].WebmedCentral 2014;5(11):WMCRW003132
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 07 Nov 2014 08:16:30 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    1) Study was designed to find out the proportion of the kidney injury in patients underwent cardiac surgery and to evaluate the efficiency of eGFR and AKIN criteria for the early prediction of Acute kidney injury.

    2) The authors collected and analyzedthe data of consecutive patients fromJanuary 2008 to November 2013. 3)  Out of 301 patients (aged between 18 to 75 years) studied 26.91% were diagnosed with AKI. AKIN criteria identified 31.22% with AKI and based on eGFR it was 29.25%.

    4) Authors suggest that both AKIN and eGFR estimations may be useful for earlier detection of AKI than serum creatinine.


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

    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?

    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?

    yes


  • 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?

    it can be published as such


  • 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:

    NA

  • 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 published a lot of papers on inflammation biology (available in pubmed) and am currently working on effect of inflammation in kidney diseases

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria [Review of the article 'Acute kidney injury in post cardiac surgery - An evaluation with eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) and akin Criteria ' by Gopalakrishna K].WebmedCentral 2014;5(11):WMCRW003131
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse