Submited on: 14 Jun 2011 07:23:25 PM GMT
Published on: 15 Jun 2011 04:00:46 PM GMT
Shoulder Arthroplasty
Posted by Dr. Arndt P Schulz on 27 Mar 2012 06:52:51 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? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
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? No
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:

    A very interesting summary of current concepts in shoulder arthroplasty

  • 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:

    Orthopaedic Surgeon

  • How to cite:  Schulz A P.Shoulder Arthroplasty[Review of the article 'Shoulder Arthroplasty: Pioneers, Choices and Controversy ' by Johnson L].WebmedCentral 2012;3(3):WMCRW001623
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse