Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category?
Yes
2
Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data?
Yes
3
Is this a new and original contribution?
Yes
4
Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic?
Yes
5
Are structure and length satisfactory?
Yes
6
Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience?
Yes
7
Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts?
No
8
Is the quality of the diction satisfactory?
Yes
9
Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?
No
10
Are the references adequate and are they all necessary?
Yes
11
Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative?
Yes
Other Comments:
I suggest reviewing the following items and making the necessary corrections:
*Table 1 and 2 are not included in the article although they have been mentioned in the text
*The degree of positivity used for Ki-67 is not sufficient the value used by Motta et al 2009 might be bettter
*There is difference between the patients number mentioned in each group and the T and N data.
*There are odd numbers of patients mentioned such as 34.637, 4.535, 1.716, and 1.637 patients?!!!!!
* It is advisable to show the disease free survival rate for both groups instead of just considering survival rate in group A
* some patients in group A were already metastatic
Competing interests: No
Invited by the author to review this article? : No
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?: Yes
References:
None
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
I have published several papers in oncology, pathological, and molecular investigations
How to cite: El-Abd E I.Second Primary Tumor: P53 and Ki-67 Expression in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma [Review of the article 'Second Primary Tumor: P53 and Ki-67 Expression in Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma ' by Cervantes O].WebmedCentral 2011;2(3):WMCRW00585
I suggest reviewing the following items and making the necessary corrections:
*Table 1 and 2 are not included in the article although they have been mentioned in the text
*The degree of positivity used for Ki-67 is not sufficient the value used by Motta et al 2009 might be bettter
*There is difference between the patients number mentioned in each group and the T and N data.
*There are odd numbers of patients mentioned such as 34.637, 4.535, 1.716, and 1.637 patients?!!!!!
* It is advisable to show the disease free survival rate for both groups instead of just considering survival rate in group A
* some patients in group A were already metastatic
No
No
Yes
None
I have published several papers in oncology, pathological, and molecular investigations