Home » Reviews
The Cystitis Glandularis : Report of 4 Cases
By Dr. Amam Mohamed , Dr. Adil Nfifakh , Dr. Mohammed Rahmani
Submited on: 31 May 2012 10:12:20 AM GMT
Published on: 31 May 2012 07:06:50 PM GMT
 
Needs a lot of improvements
Posted by Dr. Ahmed F Kotb on 02 Jun 2012 01:46:59 PM GMT

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

    cystitis glandularis!!!


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

    no clear claim.


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

    none


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

    no


  • 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?
    none
  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    no methodology at all.


  • 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 authors had to do literatures review, about similar pathology.

    the authoes had to give real clear data about their patients

    pictures and even videos had to be provided


  • 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?

    i don't like seeing this work again


  • Other Comments:

    you have cases and you have data, but you are presenting them in the wrong way.

    1- understand the disease and its pathology. cystitis glandularis doesn't present as a large mass and doesn't cause hydronephrosis. there is nothing termed important tumour as you mentioned. you had even to review the final pathology report post cystectomy, for that claimed important case, because i am sure the final diagnosis would be different.

    2- you have to do some real efforts doing literatures review, looking for recent publications

    3- you have to be able giving a message by the end of your study. there is no message at all. you wrote a manuscript as if you are talking with your colleague; saying: we had cases of cystitis glandularis that are cured endoscopically, except one important tumour managed surgically. Concenterate more and do real effort.

  • 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 uro-oncology surgeon.

  • How to cite:  Kotb A F.Needs a lot of improvements[Review of the article 'The Cystitis Glandularis : Report of 4 Cases ' by Rahmani M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001849
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.