Submited on: 21 Apr 2012 10:09:07 AM GMT
Published on: 21 Apr 2012 11:07:54 AM GMT
 

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

    The authors have studied the prevalence of skin manifestations in patients under hemodialysis. Regarding the prevalence and importance of chronic renal failure and related dermatoses conflicting the patients, this article is interesting.


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

    As cited in this study, this work is not novel.


  • 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, but it could be better if a control group had been considered in the study for comparing the results.


  • 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?

    According to the skin type specific for Indian population and regarding environmental and sanitary situation of the place of the study, if a control group had been selected for the study, the results could be different .


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

    Its methodology is valid.


  • 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?

    Comparing the skin manifestation in hemodialysis patiets with them in healthy subjects could make intresting results. The scoring system or itching severity has not been noted in this manuscript.


  • 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?

    The results can be used in academic textbooks.


  • Other Comments:

    The scoring system or itching severity should be noted in this manuscript.

  • Competing interests:
    Nill
  • 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:

    Nill

  • How to cite:  Bagherani N .A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study to Determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal[Review of the article 'A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study to Determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure on Hemodialysis ' by Shashikumar B].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001942
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
thank you. will consider in future studies
Responded by Dr. Muddanahalli R Harish on 16 Jul 2012 05:12:54 AM

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

    The main points of the paper is addressing all sorts of skin ailments in patient with CRF. Its not new topic, but as the author stated in his C/S study, the percentage encountered in his country.


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

    I think what the author stated is not new, but it needs a proper managment which is diffcult.


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

    Its OK.


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

    Well the author as said used some statistical analysis to back up his claims in his study about the CRF and skin ailments encountered.


  • 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?

    Well its a C/S study and RCTs is another thing. I think a long terms study such RCTS would answer some questions in that essence.


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

    The top of the research hierarchy as we know is RCTs. So C/S wont be an ideal answer.

     

    RCTS is the recognised hierarchy of reliability which can be used as a guide when considering the effectiveness of evidence.


  • 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.


  • 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 can be.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • 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:

    Not much, but have seen some cases.

  • How to cite:  Elghblawi E .Agree to some extent though the mucosa was not covered in the paper.[Review of the article 'A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study to Determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure on Hemodialysis ' by Shashikumar B].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001924
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
variables will increase so mucosa is not considered here
Responded by Dr. Muddanahalli R Harish on 16 Jul 2012 05:11:32 AM
Cutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure Patients on Hemodialysis
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 16 Jun 2012 01:46:44 AM GMT

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

    The paper claims to describe the skin lesions in CKD patients on hemodialysis which are very important though some may be non specific.

     


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

    No, all lesions described have been previously published


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

    Yes they are the same as described in previous literature


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

    Yes, they definetly support the claim


  • 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?

    It is descriptive study and has been conducted effectivelyand there are no deviations

     


  • 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?

    More description about the appendageal involvement and if possible the relation of skin diseases with respect to the renal parameters would add more value to the article


  • 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 relevant study


  • Other Comments:

    No

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

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Practising dermatologist for eight years

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Cutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure Patients on Hemodialysis[Review of the article 'A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study to Determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure on Hemodialysis ' by Shashikumar B].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001923
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
thank you
Responded by Dr. Muddanahalli R Harish on 16 Jul 2012 05:09:17 AM

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? 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? 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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    I think that it is always welcome to know about prevalence of diseases in different countries.

  • 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 dermatology professor in Brazil 

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .A descriptive cross sectional study to determine mucocutaneous manifestations in chronic renal failure on hemodialysis[Review of the article 'A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study to Determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure on Hemodialysis ' by Shashikumar B].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001729
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
thank you
Responded by Dr. Muddanahalli R Harish on 16 Jul 2012 05:09:01 AM

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? 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:

     

     

     

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    Presented 15 scientific papers in various conferences, published 10 articles in various indexed journals and reviewer of 03 indexed journals in field of dermatology, venereology and leprosy.

  • How to cite:  Rajshekar T .A Descriptive cross sectional study to determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in chronic renal failure on hemo[Review of the article 'A Descriptive Cross Sectional Study to Determine Mucocutaneous Manifestations in Chronic Renal Failure on Hemodialysis ' by Shashikumar B].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001714
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
thank you
Responded by Dr. Muddanahalli R Harish on 16 Jul 2012 05:08:48 AM