Submited on: 27 Dec 2013 08:07:29 PM GMT
Published on: 30 Dec 2013 05:55:42 AM GMT
A student review
Posted by Mr. Jing Deng on 19 Dec 2016 10:09:49 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The paper evaluate serveral selected methods for bitemporal lobe surgery prognosis. The conclusion part is the results of the authors opinion. I think these are very important for being like a method review paper for potental theraputic screening in a specific area.

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

    These claims are somehow can not be novel. They are more like evaluation exsiting methods in a technical way to discover their potentials.

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

    Yes, there are multiple references after states to which they are directly linked.

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

    There are no results posted in this paper. The figures, however, only provied some examples that the methods listed in the paper can be used in the interested disease surgery prognosis.

  • 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 results posted, so no deviation can be assumed.

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

    The paper provide serval methods but not in details. The authors did not mention if they performed all the selected methods for experiments of this paper, so can not assumed that the analyses can be reproduced or not.

  • 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?

    Yes, I think clinical tirals and selected data that were posted in this area can be re-work for the purpose of this artical, giving the conclusion part a more strong and academic background. If it is only the data collecting job, it would not take a long time.

  • 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, I would like to see this work presented in my university's hospital. I think theoretical analysis like this towards an unsettled theraputic problem aiming to find a better method in clinical application is always exciting. Its verification can be very timely and efficient.

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have been doing research in neurosciences and received a MS degree in Medicinal Sciences, although not very knowledgeable in temporal lobe epilepsy related surgery, I am quite interesting in this field of research.

  • How to cite:  Deng J .A student review[Review of the article 'Bitemporal Lobe Epilepsy Versus Unitemporal Lobe Epilepsy ' by Zekja I].WebmedCentral 2016;7(12):WMCRW003350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse