Submited on: 02 Mar 2013 09:41:25 AM GMT
Published on: 02 Mar 2013 12:16:53 PM GMT
 
Carcinoid Syndrome
Posted by Dr. Robert Lodder on 05 Feb 2016 02:32:17 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    This paper is a thorough review on carcinoid syndrome, including key symptoms, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment.


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

    No, this is a review article, but it does highlight some important features of carcinoid syndrome.


  • 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?

    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?

    NA


  • 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, this article is a good reference for someone just learning about carcinoid syndrome.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Lodder R .Carcinoid Syndrome[Review of the article 'Carcinoid Syndrome ' by Polu R].WebmedCentral 2016;7(2):WMCRW003272
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Carcinoid Syndrome
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 01 Apr 2013 12:33:13 AM GMT

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

    This paper provides a review of carcinoid syndrome and provides information about epidemiology, symptomatology and outcomes. There is a connection to neuroendocrine tumors.


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

    No, no novel claims made; as indicated in the methods, this is a review article of previously published literature


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

    Yes. the references are attached and are appropriately placed in the text


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

    This is a review article and provides an overview of the disease


  • 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?

    Yes; as indicated they have done a review of existing literature


  • 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 problem with this review is that it starts out discussing carcinoid syndrome and then jumps to neuroendocrine tumors; this is confusing and not properly transitioned.


  • 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 is only a review and not original work - so no, I would not use this as a seminar at the hospital


  • Other Comments:

    There are some grammatical errors; Also, the figures are not correct; In fact one figure does not make any sense at all - it has a legend of 4 symptoms of carcinoid and the photo is of a neck showing needle puncture! one figure is missing and there are two of the same figures.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Carcinoid Syndrome [Review of the article 'Carcinoid Syndrome ' by Polu R].WebmedCentral 2016;4(4):WMCRW002661
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Carcinoid Syndrome
Posted by Dr. Constantino Ledesma-Montes on 05 Mar 2013 09:15:00 PM GMT

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

    The authors present a review on carcinoid syndrome. This kind of manuscripts are important since this kind of patients are not frequently reviewed in some Health Services.


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

    No. they are not novel, but publication of this kind of manuscripts are important, because they recall us on the main features of the syndrome.


  • 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?

    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?

    NA


  • 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 this article is outstanding since it is informative, objective and easy to read. I consider, it can be included in the references section of the General Pathology courses.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist and me and my students regularly review this kind of patients during their training.

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .Carcinoid Syndrome[Review of the article 'Carcinoid Syndrome ' by Polu R].WebmedCentral 2016;4(3):WMCRW002567
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse