Submited on: 30 Apr 2012 01:29:01 PM GMT
Published on: 30 Apr 2012 06:55:22 PM GMT
 

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

    Tobacco is one of  the most common hazardous substance for general health as well as oral health. Understanding the oral cancer risk is important to prevent the cancer and decrease the cancer risk.


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

    Not very 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

     

  • 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?

    There are no very important deviations from the paper.

     

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

    The methodology is not enough 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?

    The data in this study need to be analyzed further to show the association between smoking and oral cancer in Guntur.


  • 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

     


  • 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?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Ji, X., W. Zhang, et al. "Nasopharyngeal carcinoma risk by histologic type in central China: impact of smoking, alcohol and family history." Int J Cancer 129(3): 724-32.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I ever studied the relationship between smoking and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

  • How to cite:  Ji X .Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits[Review of the article 'Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits? ' by Kakanur K].WebmedCentral 2012;4(8):WMCRW002849
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits?
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 25 Jun 2012 07:47:55 AM GMT

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

    It is about among the Guntur city population awareness regarding risk factors of oral cancer. It can be guid to the other readers.


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

    It is medium grade novel.


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

    No, literature amount is not enough for deal with discuss matter.


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

    Medium grade


  • 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  Not clear.


  • 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?

    It will be add more latest references.


  • 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?

     NA


  • Other Comments:

    It will be add more latest references, and they have to evaluate with result of study.

    Paper shoul be more improve.

  • Competing interests:
    NA
  • 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:

    Pediatric Dentistry

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits?[Review of the article 'Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits? ' by Kakanur K].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001973
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This article evaluates the use of betel quid, areca nut and tobacco along with an analysis

    of the attitudes and knowledge of the general population of Guntur towards tobacco products.


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

    These claims are sound.


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

    Proper and appropriate references have been cited where needed. though vancouver method of citing them has not been followed.


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

    Results do 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?

    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 valid. they have translated the questionnaire in the local language. they have also used a third party to explain the same to illiterate people to avoid bias.


  • 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 could have been made better had they performed oral examination and  clinically recorded the oral lesions and findings present in the study group due to tobacco products.


  • 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 paper is relevant, well written , if not outstanding. it is not outstanding as it is only a questionnaire based survey, unsupported by any clinical examination.


  • Other Comments:

    Discussion part could have been more detailed. also, the studies quoted in it should have been in the following format- Nagpal R et al , rather than starting with a DR. prefix (Dr. Nagpal R et al). Also, the term et al should be added in the references only after first mentioning the first six authors. All the author names in the references are starting with the prefix of DR. please follow the vancouver method of citing references. et al to be written only if more than 6 authors.

  • 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:

    Associate professor, taught community and preventive dentistry for 8 yr, periodontis for 9 yr, 5 months.

  • How to cite:  Gupta S .Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits?[Review of the article 'Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits? ' by Kakanur K].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001971
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Oral Cancer Risk
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 15 May 2012 08:16:57 PM 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? 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:

    This is a well-written article which evaluates the use of betel quid, areca nut and tobacco along with an analysis of the attitudes and knowledge of the general population of Guntur towards tobacco products.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    clinical associate professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.Oral Cancer Risk[Review of the article 'Understanding of Oral Cancer Risk in Male Population of Guntur with Tobacco Habits? ' by Kakanur K].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001812
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse