Submited on: 05 Sep 2016 10:50:43 AM GMT
Published on: 06 Sep 2016 01:12:44 PM GMT
 
Needs work in statistics and specificity
Posted by Ms. Elysha Calhoun on 21 Nov 2016 10:44:56 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The report claims that sesame seeds are effecitive in relieving symptoms associated with menopause in women. More specifically, this report states that the consumption of these seeds improves symptoms such as insomnia, joint pains, asthma attacks and migraines. The research is certainly not as dire as say cancer or HIV, but still important in providing some relief from a discomfort that most all women will experience. The report also claims that the study is "quasi experimental research."


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

    The claims are not novel in the sense that many rumoured "superfoods" can supposedly relieve symptoms of all kinds of disease states. 


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

    The introduction mentions several menopausal symptoms that are not addressed later in the study. There is no mention of what specific symptoms the study intends to observe. The data is presented in a strange way and the results section is flooded with many arbitrary percent values. The literature that is cited within the body of the report has little to do with the actual subject matter, such as the citation regarding sesame seeds and tumor size. 


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

    No. There is no mention of a control within the population, nor is there an ackowledgement of confounding due to the lack of a placebo. The before and after model is fine, but there needed to be a control before and after where the women did not recieve any treatment as well as a placebo treatment where after intervention, the woman consumes something she believes will have an effect. The results presented are purely circumstantial in nature and to not support the claims made in the introduction.


  • 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 does not appear to be any deviation from the protocol as the protocol is relatively simple. The protocol is to provide the population with a regular questionaire asking them to list their personal characteristics and daily symptoms. There was no mention of any deviation from this protocol.


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

    I do not believe the methodology is valid. The sample is very specific to occupation, location, and ethnicity and is far from a random sample. To reproduce this study, surveying would have to occur in the exact sample place, and results would only be applicable to women of that origin. The survey questions appear to be a bit too in-depth, as there is quite a bit of effort to characterize the women of this study which may be a bit unnecessary. 


  • 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?

    This study needs to be much more centralized. The questionairre attempted to quantify far too many aspects of the lives of the participants. Instead, the study should focus on the sesame seeds' effect on one menopausal symptom while reporting any alternative improvements later in the paper. The expanded focus on several different symptoms is too convoluted. 


  • 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 is not outstanding in its dicipline, but it is a good attempt towards progressing natural remedies. 


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

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

    N/A

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Experience in experimentation, educated in statistics. Not an expert in womens health.

  • How to cite:  Calhoun E .Needs work in statistics and specificity [Review of the article 'Effect of Use of Sesame Seeds On Management Of Selective Symptoms Among Women In Different Age Groups ' by Prince D].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003346
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 claim of the paper is that sesame seeds can be used in the prevention and treatment of symptoms brought about by menopause. As stated in the paper, this is an extremely important claim, as menopausal symptoms can significantly decrease patient quality of life. 


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

    While these claims are not necessary novel, the paper does not present them as so. The article does a good job correlating their results with results from other studies in the literature. 


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

    Yes. However, I am unsure exactly what contribution the results of this study makes in the field. Scientifically, many groups seem to be looking at the ability of sesame seeds to treat menopausal symptoms. Other than supporting this theory, what does this study contribute to the understanding of this use of sesame seeds?


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

    While the results do seem to support the claims, the presentation of the data is confusing and not clear. Too many tables mask the trends of the results and it is difficult to see which results are the most relevant. Bar graphs or pie charts could be used to make the results more visually appealing and easier to follow.

     

    It is possible that the results post-treatment could be affected by something other than the treatment. A discussion regarding how one is to be sure that the results reflect the treatment, and not other factors, is necessary.


  • 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?

    Protocol seems to be directly followed. 


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

    In order to aid reproducibility, it would be helpful to provide copies of the assessments used to question the patients.

     

    The paper states that the assessments were reviewed for validity by “expert colleagues.” A description of these individuals, along with their credentials and the methodology that they used to review the assessments, would help the credibility of the methodology section.

     

    Only 5 women that were not included in the study were used to test the validity of the assessments. Increasing this number could lead to more accurate results. 


  • 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 addition of a control group could help increase the validity and credibility of the results found in this study. This would require repetition of the experiment, but would likely be worth the extra work.

     

    A short summary of the mechanism(s) by which sesame seeds are able to reduce the magnitude of menopausal symptoms could be helpful in the introduction. Specifically, further explanation on how sesame seeds are able to cause regression of tumor size is necessary. This was included in the introduction, but seems irrelevant to the rest of the paper.

     

    A short summary of menopause and the cause of menopausal systems in the introduction could be helpful in terms of telling a complete research story in the article.

     

    From the very beginning, it is unclear and vague which “selective symptoms” the article is focusing on.  A clearer statement of the relevant symptoms would be helpful as part of the objectives/introduction sections.


  • 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?

    Because the claim is not novel, I do not consider this paper outstanding. It is unclear what specific contribution this study makes to the field, other than supporting current theories that have already been supported scientifically. 


  • Other Comments:

    An explanation of how the collected data (such as number of pregnancies and blood pressure) could affect the menopausal symptoms or the effectiveness of the treatment would be beneficial. How do we know that these results are only an effect of the sesame seeds?

  • 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:

    .

  • How to cite:  Dray K .Review of Effect of Use of Sesame Seeds On Management Of Selective Symptoms Among Women In Different Age Groups[Review of the article 'Effect of Use of Sesame Seeds On Management Of Selective Symptoms Among Women In Different Age Groups ' by Prince D].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003316
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse