Submited on: 31 Jan 2011 05:01:29 PM GMT
Published on: 01 Feb 2011 10:48:27 AM GMT
 

1 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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    It is a well written case report. However, the Illustration 1 and Illustration 2 provided are not clear enough to understand fully. It is advisable that author resubmit Illustration 1 and Illustration 2 in tabulated form without any overlapping words or sentences. 

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    I am a qualified Clinical Neurophysiologist and specialised in Nerve Conduction Study & Electromyography

  • How to cite:  Sumon M H.Electrodiagnostic Findings In Brachial Plexopathy After Influenza Vaccination[Review of the article 'Electrodiagnostic Findings In Brachial Plexopathy After Influenza Vaccination ' by Chen B].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW00989
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you for your favorable review. Regarding the illustrations, when I pull them up from this WemedCentral online article they look perfectly fine, without any overlapping words, and already presented in the tabular form that you suggested. I wonder if there is an issue with which internet browser you used to open them? It downloads and display fine when I access the article via Firefox; I'm not sure if any other browsers cause problems but I will look into that. Thank you again for your favorable review. --Patrick Foye, MD, Associate Professor, New Jersey Medical School
Responded by Dr. Patrick M Foye on 05 Oct 2011 03:24:25 PM
The article might be of greater importance
Posted by Prof. Prasunpriya Nayak on 04 Feb 2011 04:28:22 AM GMT

1 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? No
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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The report is important in the view that the vaccination need to be regulated. The adjuvent (Aluminum salt) used in the given vaccine also could be one cause of neural damage.

  • 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:

    NIL

  • How to cite:  Nayak P .The article might be of greater importance[Review of the article 'Electrodiagnostic Findings In Brachial Plexopathy After Influenza Vaccination ' by Chen B].WebmedCentral 2011;2(2):WMCRW00435
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse