Submited on: 08 May 2012 02:56:26 AM GMT
Published on: 08 May 2012 08:32:25 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Current status of the hepatitis C virus infections and their control.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Authors have not presented a new data. They have merely reviewed the existing literature.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    NA


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    NA


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Reorganization needed.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No way


  • Other Comments:

    1. Title, Aim and content do not align. Authors claims to have mainly discussed anti-viral therapy for hepatitis C virus. In the light of this AIM, I dont understand the elaborated discussion on other topics such as DIAGNOSIS.

     

    2. Chunks of the information are clubbed together in a disorganised way. A reading and re-reading of their own manuscript would have helped the author to shapen it properly. Very poor presentation. Use of terminology is inappropriate.

     

    3. Authors claim to have browsed hundreds of articles for writing this manuscript. Yet they have used only few. Then what is the use of employing this many search engines and databases for collection of the articles?

     

    4. Caption must have been given to tables.

     

     

     

  • 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:

    7 years experience of working, reading and writing on Microbiology (Infectious diseases).

  • How to cite:  Gupta R .Emerging and Re-emerging infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001928
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Title of the paper not appropriate. Hepatitis C was always there but we have ignored either due to the nature of its spread or more importantly because many poor and developing countries could not afford routine testing. The point which the authors intended to convey should be appreciated. At the same time authors could have done so much to improve the presentation. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Have not evaluated


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Have not evaluated


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Have not evaluated


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    PAPER WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE INSIGHT IN TO THE THERAPY. BUT AUTHORS HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED AS THEY HAVE INCLUDED THE NATURE OF VIRUS, LABDIAGNOSIS WHICH HAVE NOT CHANGED 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    TOPIC EXCELLENT: PRESENTED IN A POOR FASHION


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    AS A MICROBIOLOGIST INVOLVED IN DIAGNOSIS

  • How to cite:  Kandi V .Hepatitis C Virus: A comprehensive review including antiviral therapy[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001878
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Hepatitis C
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 05 Jun 2012 09:40:51 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    It explores new developments in anti-viral therapy intreating Hepatitis C.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    yes


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    yes-  it would be a very good presentation for healthcare workers at universities or hospitals.


  • Other Comments:

    This article is essential reading for anyone involved in direst patient care.  It uses solid methodology and is encouraging to see that there is great promise in the treatment of hepatitis c. 15-20% of people treated with anti-viral treatment will have the virus eradicated over the next 10-20 years. 20 to 30% of those who remain infected will go on to develop cirrhosis. This is of particular importance because the development of cirrhosis is a predisposing factor in leading to hepatocellular carcinoma in 1-5% of those chronically infected with the virus.

  • 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:

    Clinical Associate Professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.Hepatitis C[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001876
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Hepatitis C
Posted by Prof. Jayendra R Gohil on 05 Jun 2012 06:59:39 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To explore new developments in anti-viral therapy used to treat hepatitis C.

    An important questin.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes, Partially. Many things are already known. Ref 34 is missing from ref. list. Biopsy slide photos may be added. Discussion may have sub-headings.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA. However search methods are mentioned.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Consider to answer- 'Does antiviral therapy for hepatitis C prevent hepatocellular carcinoma?' Though difficult as long follow-up is required.

    Difference in incidence and response in children vs adults ?


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes. Though not outstanding, current and recent treatmet is discussed that will be useful to a PG in the department.


  • Other Comments:

    A good article overall.

  • 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:

    treating children with Hepatitis in a medical college attached hospital.

  • How to cite:  Gohil J R.Hepatitis C[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001871
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To explore new developments in anti-viral therapy use to treat hepatitis C. Anti-viral therapy for treating chronic hepatitis C currently remains the only option in preventing cases of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are not novel, but, the review is interesting.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes. 


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes. 


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
    Not applicable.

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
    Not applicable.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes.


  • Other Comments:
    Since this is a review, should not lead the section "Discussion", the content should go under "Treatment."
    Make no reference 2011-12.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Pérez-López JA, García-Elorriaga G, del Rey-Pineda G, Manjarrez-Téllez B. Anticuerpos contra hepatitis B después de vacunación en trabajadores de la salud. Salud Pública de México. 2011; 53(3):205-206.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001865
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    That Hepatitis C is emerging as a common cause of preventable liver cancer. This knowledge has policy and practical implications 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    It is already a known fact and hence weakens the originality of this one. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    A comparison of the extent of the problem - current Vs past or a graph showing trends over time would have established that the disease is emerging/ re-emerging


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The "Results" section is missing or is not explicitly finding a place - it merges in the Introduction and then authors jump straight to discussion. A summary of findings could have been made and shown in the results section to help clarify to the audience what were the findings from the review of literature


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    not applicable


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Methodology is vague. details of search strategy , key words used etc are not given and so the results cannot be reproduced.

     

    Only in one of the Tables labelled crudely as "Results" does one find that the search term used was 

    "Hepatitis C and Anti-Viral therapy" which is very broad


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    The title is misleading as compared to the stated aim of the study "To explore new developments in ant i -vi ral therapy used to treat hepatitis C" . This is not reflected in the title

     

    The results are not systematically presented

     

    The titles of the tables are not self explanatory

     

    The conclusions para doesn't clearly capture the gist / conclusion that the authors have reached

     

     


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No , it is not outstanding. It merely reiterates an already known fact and it succeeds in confusing rather than clarifying what was sought to be illuminative.

     

    Even the conclusions section when read on its own does not clearly state what are the conclusions; one needs to go into the discussion to search for it again  


  • Other Comments:

    It appears as a Post Graduate seminar which does not clarify much but confuses. A systematic way of classifying and presentation of findings would have made the audience of the seminar worth attending.

     

    Authors have to decide whether they want to highlight recent advances in treatment of the Viral Hepatitis or simply pad it with lot of epidemiological stuff which is already well known and presented in any textbook.

     

    In its present form is not fit for publication in a journal unless improved drastically

  • 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:

    Expertise in epidemiology and study designs

  • How to cite:  Chacko T V.Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001864
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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? 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:

    The Author can write more literature about Hepatitis C. The number of reference must be more.

  • Competing interests:
    Nil
  • 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:

    No

  • How to cite:  Kumar A .Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C[Review of the article 'Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis C ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001787
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse