Submited on: 31 May 2012 09:59:23 PM GMT
Published on: 01 Jun 2012 11:31:07 AM GMT
De-Novo Malignancies post Heart Transplantation
Posted by Dr. Emad Bakir on 17 Jun 2012 07:51:05 AM GMT

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

    The paper adress the role of immune supressive tratment in developing post heart transplantation malignancies.

    The article demonstrates the relationship between the various factors and the mechanics of how cancer develop.

    Of an important parmount is the relationship between the HPV,EPV and the post surpressive treatment activity,and how this combined influence the CD4 numbers and then the technical aspect of developing cancer 

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

    This claims are novel and arestudied with strong evidences of how immune surpessive treatment post heart transplantation in conjunction with other factors like HPV andEPV.

    Howevper  alot of research is still needed in order to fully understand the process of developing cancer and why specific cancers are more common than others.

    The paper is review of literature only and is not a research subject, this is the main weakness of this paper.

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

    Yes they are, however more extensive reviews are needed to include more international centres and to analyze more data.

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

    yes they do, but more research is needed

  • 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?

    This is not a trial it is review of literature whith suffecient data analyzes at this stage , but far more is needed

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

    yes it does, again this is analyses of data only

  • 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?

    Yes definitly

  • 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?

    It is a good paper and need to be incorporated in all future lectures on this subject.

    It is not outstanding as there is a lack of research to support all points cade in the paper, but this is known to the authors

  • Other Comments:

    Good paper with acceptable scitific standards

  • 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:
    Consultant Radiologist taking part and diagnosis and treatment of cancer
  • How to cite:  Bakir E .De-Novo Malignancies post Heart Transplantation[Review of the article 'De-Novo Malignancies Post Heart Transplantation: A Review of the Literature on the Mechanisms, Types, and Causes of the Malignancies. ' by Venyo A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001929
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse