Submited on: 03 Aug 2012 12:51:54 PM GMT
Published on: 03 Aug 2012 07:09:48 PM GMT
 

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

    The paper claims to have created a novel method for the detection of QT interval prolongation in response to drugs and/or medications. This claim, to detect QT prolongation, is important when studying drugs to determine safety in medication therapy for patients. 

     


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

    Measuring QT interval prolongation has been seen to be standardized in the field but this paper claims the use of novel software in order to close in on the QT prolongation risk levels of different medications. 

     


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

    Yes, these claims are in context with previous literature regarding QT prolongation studies. 


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

    This paper demonstrated that researchers were able to monitor ECG recordings of patients but no QT interval prolongations were reported with this software. Therefore the research seems to be lacking in examples of QT prolongation with this type of novel software and comparing them to over observational methods.

     


  • 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?

    There are no important deviations noted.


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

    Yes, the methodogy is valid and enough detail is provided in order to reproduce 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?

    If the researchers provided QT prolongation data using their novel software in contrast to over methods that would really benefit this paper. Being able to compare data shown to QT prolongation data would allow the reader to understand why this novel software is so beneficial. 


  • 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 could be outstanding in its discipline if there was comparable data of QT prolongation. If this novel software can take more accurate measurements then this work would easily be presentable at a hospital or university.


  • Other Comments:

    The paper was a little hard to follow at times however my biggest complaint comes from the figures/illustrations. I think this paper would benefit from the standardization of its own figures. If the author would have removed some of the illustrations from the window's window itself, I think the paper would look more sophisticated. 

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    .

  • How to cite:  Moran P .Detecting Drug-induced QT Interval Prolongation in Healthy Dogs: A Practical Approach--> Review[Review of the article 'Detecting Drug-induced QT Interval Prolongation in Healthy Dogs: A Practical Approach ' by Borsini F].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003174
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Detecting Drug-induced QT Interval Prolongation in Healthy Dogs: A Practical Approach
Posted by Mr. Jackson Overton on 08 Dec 2014 07:33:23 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    This paper is proposing a novel method for the detection of QT interval prolongation in response to drug products. Accurate assessment of the risks of QT interval prolongation of drugs are important to ensure safe medication therapy in patients.


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

    The process of measuring QT interval prolongation is relatively standardized across studies. However, the difference in this study appears to be the use of novel software in order to more accurately determine QT interval prolongation risk.


  • 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 researchers were able to monitor ECG recordings with the test subjects, but without examples of QT interval prolongation using this software and comparing similar recordings using more standardized methods, the research appears to be lacking if it wants to show that this method is better than other methods.


  • 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


  • 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?

    More data would benefit the paper. As previously mentioned, examples of QT interval prolongation in comparison to other methods of observation would lend more credibility to the claims of the article.


  • 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?

    As I mentioned before, I found this paper lacking in the amount of data that was provided. There was not comparison of this method compared to other methods of QT interval prolongation measurement. 


  • Other Comments:

    I found the paper difficult to follow at times primarily due to word choice, although I got the impression that the author knew what he was talking about in regards to the paper.

  • 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 have had background in sufficient knowledge of the subjects discussed to review this article

  • How to cite:  Overton J .Detecting Drug-induced QT Interval Prolongation in Healthy Dogs: A Practical Approach[Review of the article 'Detecting Drug-induced QT Interval Prolongation in Healthy Dogs: A Practical Approach ' by Borsini F].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003158
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse