Submited on: 21 Sep 2011 09:48:01 AM GMT
Published on: 21 Sep 2011 07:06:04 PM GMT
 
review of fistuals (obstettric) in Sudan
Posted by Dr. Shyamsunder R Koteyar on 08 Oct 2011 09:04:20 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? Partly
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? No
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:

    The articlefocuses on a very important topic, in obstetrics, dealing with vescovaginal fistulas (VVF). It  has been posted as a review article on the subject. While it focuses very well on incidence, previalance and casues of fistula, it does not focus on other aspects - diagnosis, treatment, managment of complicaations.

     

    It would be helpful, if some illustrations werre included, such as how  and where do fistulas occur. Also imgaing of VVF wwould have enhanced the value of the article

  • 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 have 18 yeaars experience from imaging pers

  • How to cite:  Koteyar S R.review of fistuals (obstettric) in Sudan[Review of the article 'A Review of Obstetric Fistula in Sudan ' by Khalil A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW00995
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of obstetric fistulas in Sudan
Posted by Dr. Shyamsunder R Koteyar on 08 Oct 2011 08:49:51 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? Partly
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? No
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? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The article focuses on an important issue of vesicovaginal fistulas(VVF). It would add value to the article, if there were illustrations. It would also help if there was information about how to diagonose VVF, and how to treat it, as a review article needs to focus on all aspects, including diagnosis, management and prevention.

    It deals nicely about causes, incidence, prevailance of VVF. But the article does not deal with diagnosis, treatment or managment.

    If these are added, the article will have enhanced value 

  • 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 have 18 years expereince from imaging perspective.

  • How to cite:  Koteyar S R.Review of obstetric fistulas in Sudan[Review of the article 'A Review of Obstetric Fistula in Sudan ' by Khalil A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW00994
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A Review of Obstetric Fistula in Sudan
Posted by Mr. Govind N Purohit on 23 Sep 2011 06:20:09 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? No
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? No
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? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This manuscript is mentioned as a review but nor presented taht way. It is rather a short communication with little findings The manner of reference mention is all together different from what is used internationally i.e i, ii, iii, iv This should be changed to 1, 2, 3, 4, or the author names for example Tsunoda et al 2003; Mames and WOlf 1998. Critical evaluation, therapeutic methodologies and the conclusion are missing in this MS. It should have been better if it were presented as a short communication with some data analysis by the authors rather then a review.

  • 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:

    Written many reviews in animal reproduction

  • How to cite:  Purohit G N.A Review of Obstetric Fistula in Sudan[Review of the article 'A Review of Obstetric Fistula in Sudan ' by Khalil A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00962
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse