-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This is a retrospective study of women with a known placenta previa who experienced a postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean and were treated with oxytocin Carboprost, and figure of 8 stitches but failed to repond to these treatments and a Bakri balloon was placed.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
There are 8 of the references for this study that address the use of a balloon for postpartum hemorrhage and the # 1 reference by Cho H seems to address this very subject matter. The authors need to do a thorough literatue search to determine if this type of retrospective review has been done by others.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Need to do proper literature search to determne what informatio is currently available and what articles have been published about the use of the Bakri Balloon in women with placenta previas.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
N/A: This is just a description of a retrospective study
-
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 protocol, a retrospective study
-
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?
I think that this paper would be greatly improved if we had a comprehenisve review of the currently published information on placenta previa at cesarean and the treatement if conservative measures fail with a Bakri Balloon.
-
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?
Is not outstanding, would need to be a larger study or the authors would need to do the study and then highlight unique features of their findings if they exisit.
-
Other Comments:
N/A
-
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:
Currently MFM with over 300 published Peer review articles. A number of publication addressing postpartum hemorrhage.
- How to cite: Magann E F.Bakri Balloon for the managment of placenta previa[Review of the article 'Bakri balloon for the management of placenta praevia: Retrospective study (Protocol) ' by Othman M].WebmedCentral 2016;6(12):WMCRW003262
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Placenta praevia is a common problem encountered. They have analysed a simple but effective method.
The analysis is a very valid and meticulously done.
Yes. The analysis go hand in hand with the previous research findings.
The results support the claim.
No deviation for the nomral study.
Methodology is valid and offers enough details.
Not necessary.
Yes. This paper is outstanding and encourage the use of Bakri balloon for the management of placenta praevia: R
This paper deserves publication.
.
Yes
No
None
I am working as consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist since 1992 and presently working as professor in obstetrics and gynaecology at the Melaka Manipal medical college, Malaysia