Submited on: 08 May 2015 08:51:06 AM GMT
Published on: 08 May 2015 12:02:46 PM GMT
 

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

    no claim or rational was given regarding the importance of this case to report in literature


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

    No claim


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

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    Retrosternal goiter with compression symptos is a common finding and routinly operated through neck incision. I have not found any thing special which leads to report this case.


  • 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, its a routing work and presented in oridinary form.


  • Other Comments:

    Abstract: too long having basic and ordinary facts without any specific reasoning to report this case.

    Introduction: Too long, containing basic details, without any rational that why this case id reported or important to report.

    Case details: Does not contain any exciting or rare event or any extraordinary finding leading to report this case.

    Discussion: contain common, known facts and details about the retrosternal goiter .

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    An experience with retrosternal goiter

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have published a research paper on this topic

  • How to cite:  Ahmed I .Retrosternal goiter with posterior mediastinal extension surgery in a patient with superior vena cava obstruction through a classic neck incision; Case report [Review of the article 'Retrosternal goiter with posterior mediastinal extension surgery in a patient with superior vena cava obstruction through a classic neck incision; Case report ' by Al-zahrani A].WebmedCentral 2015;6(6):WMCRW003226
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 main claims of the paper are quite relevant


  • 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?

    In my opinion the artcle has laid more emphasis on introduction and discussion but has not been able to justify the writings about the case report which in itself is very brief.


  • 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?

    N/A


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

    N/A


  • 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?

    In my opinion this case report has a good content but needs to be rewritten and the detailed portions of introduction and discussion need to be curtailed.


  • 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 really


  • Other Comments:

    bibliography needs to in vancover style as per international format;you cannot have etal only after one author.

  • 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:

    I have atlease more than 90 publicationss in national and international journals

  • How to cite:  Parray F Q. Retrosternal goiter with posterior mediastinal extension surgery in a patient with superior vena cava obstruction through a classic neck incision; Case report[Review of the article 'Retrosternal goiter with posterior mediastinal extension surgery in a patient with superior vena cava obstruction through a classic neck incision; Case report ' by Al-zahrani A].WebmedCentral 2015;6(5):WMCRW003220
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse