Submited on: 11 Dec 2014 10:58:38 AM GMT
Published on: 11 Dec 2014 01:39:28 PM GMT
 
Very interesting and well written article
Posted by Prof. Pietro G Calo on 13 Dec 2014 04:02:04 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    It happens more and more often in clinical practice to operate on patients in antiaggregant therapy. The main claims of the paper are to provide an analysis of antiaggregant therapy management in patients undergoing abdominal surgery and to evaluate its impact on preoperative and postoperative management, on the choice of the surgical technique and on the complications. This topic is very important for the frequency of the use of antiaggregant agents in the population and the increase in the average age of the population itself


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

    Despite the frequency of this clinical situation article published in the literature are few and of little impact. So we can consider these claims novel


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

    The claims are properly placed in the context of the previous literature, but references are missing in this article.


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

    The results support clearly and precisely 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?

    No deviations


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

    It is not clear what were the criteria that led to suspend or continue antiaggregant therapy (subgroup A1 vs A2)


  • 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 would be helpful to understand the differences between the patients in subroups A1 and A2, and that is why in some cases the antiaggregant treatment was suspended while in others it was continued


  • 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 is outstanding in its discipline, for the rarity of the article on this topic and the frequency of antiaggregated patients.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    Good experience of abdominal surgery and of operations with antiaggregant therapy. Previuous articles on abdominal and laparoscopic surgery in Pubmed

  • How to cite:  Calo P G.Very interesting and well written article[Review of the article 'Laproscopic and open surgical impact in patients treated with Anti aggregant therapy' by Malavasi V].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003168
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Bleeding  and thromboembolic risks  after surgery in patients with antiaggregant therapy


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

    Yes, very important nowadays


  • 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?

    Good in the present form


  • 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:

    No

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

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    General surgeon with a lot of practice in that field of surgery

  • How to cite:  Kornprat P .Laparoscopic and open surgical impact in patients treated with antiaggregant therapy[Review of the article 'Laproscopic and open surgical impact in patients treated with Anti aggregant therapy' by Malavasi V].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003167
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse