Submited on: 29 Sep 2010 02:15:04 AM GMT
Published on: 29 Sep 2010 08:05:13 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? No
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? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The study has an appropriate design and the observations have been vividly described. However, I would like to make following comments for possible clarification/ inclusion:

    1. As also highlighted by authors, the USCOM (Non-invasive human cardiac output monitor promoted by USCOM ltd. Sydney, Australia) is not interchangeable with the specialized rodent echocardiography module of the same principal (read company), providing a derived CO value for rodents.
    2. The measured & derived CO values have large variation.
    3.  The authors have suggested a rat specific algorithm but have not described it vividly with its scientific basis and practicability.  
    4. The references may be updated with more recent additions and deleting some other/s so as to ultimately have about same numbers.
  • 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:

    Over 3 decades

  • How to cite:  Mishra L D.Non-Invasive Rodent Cardiac Output: Comparison of a Compact Clinical Monitor with Echocardiography [Review of the article 'Non-Invasive Rodent Cardiac Output: Comparison of a Compact Clinical Monitor with Echocardiography ' by Venkatesh B].WebmedCentral 2010;2(3):WMCRW00558
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • Other Comments: Well written and appropriate design. Although, the technique didn't quite match up with the gold standard. A correction is needed!
  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    Anesthesiology
  • How to cite:  Apuya J .Non-Invasive Rodent Cardiac Output: Comparison Of A Compact Clinical Monitor With Echocardiography [Review of the article 'Non-Invasive Rodent Cardiac Output: Comparison of a Compact Clinical Monitor with Echocardiography ' by Venkatesh B].WebmedCentral 2010;1(11):WMCRW00109
Report abuse