Submited on: 23 Nov 2014 01:51:06 PM GMT
Published on: 24 Nov 2014 11:08:58 AM GMT
 
Study of RIF mass
Posted by Mr. Krishna Kumar Govindarajan on 28 Feb 2015 05:54:28 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    To undertake a clinico pathological review of RIF mass


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

    Viewing in the context of the author's nativity, the study may reflect the prevalence of the particular condition in the locality


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

    Not relevant


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

    Not relevant


  • 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?

    Not relevant


  • 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?

    Analysis of probable vs final diagnosis would throw more light on reasons for change in diagnosis.


  • 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 study is a descriptive study without providing any recommendation as how to manage a RIF mass.


  • Other Comments:

    ---

  • 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:

    In surgical practice (14 years) , RIF mass is a common working diagnosis.

  • How to cite:  Govindarajan K .Study of RIF mass[Review of the article 'Clinico- pathological study of right Iliac Fossa Mass ' by Sable S].WebmedCentral 2014;6(2):WMCRW003187
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Clinico-pathological study of right iliac fossa mass.
Posted by Dr. KETAN R VAGHOLKAR on 24 Nov 2014 01:55:54 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The study aims at investigating the pathological forms of diseases presenting as right iliac fossa masses.


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

    The claims are in conformity with standard prcatice.


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

    Some issues need to be clarified. Especially those cases wherein TB and mailgnancy were considered.


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

    The objectives were just epidemiological with respect to the pathology. Hence provibg claims was not the problem.


  • 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 was not a RCT.


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

    Yes it does give an idea of the trends.


  • 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 diagnostic modalities especially for TB, malignancy and the role of barium meal follow through prior to elective appendectomy need to be elaborated.


  • 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?

    In a refined form with more elaborate details.


  • Other Comments:

    Citing of references needs refinement.

  • 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:

    Extensive research in GI surgery.

  • How to cite:  VAGHOLKAR K R.Clinico-pathological study of right iliac fossa mass.[Review of the article 'Clinico- pathological study of right Iliac Fossa Mass ' by Sable S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(11):WMCRW003146
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse