Submited on: 18 Apr 2012 09:58:36 PM GMT
Published on: 19 Apr 2012 04:46:06 PM GMT
 
Treating Cancer with Vaccine
Posted by Prof. Dainius Characiejus on 04 Jul 2012 03:25:18 PM GMT

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

    This is a review article on the important topic of developing cancer vaccines.


  • 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?

    Non applicable.


  • 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?

    Non applicable.


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

    Non applicable.


  • 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?

    Non 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?

    Not sure.


  • Other Comments:

    It seems that the majority of papers in the References list are review papers. The article would have been stronger, if the author had analyzed a larger number of original articles on cancer vaccines. It would be interesting to learn more details about cancer vaccines, their clinical efficacy, and what can be concluded from the available data.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Characiejus D, Jacobs JJ, Pašukonien? V, Kazlauskait? N, Danilevi?i?t? V, Mauricas M, Den Otter W. Prediction of response in cancer immunotherapy. Anticancer Res 31: 639-647, 2011

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Characiejus D .Treating Cancer with Vaccine [Review of the article 'Treating Cancer with Vaccine ' by Bele T].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002033
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Treating Cancer with Vaccine
Posted by Prof. Valentin Shichkin on 23 Jun 2012 02:54:22 PM GMT

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

    The paper gives short review the current trends in development of anti-cancer vaccines. Some promising types of vaccines that are in pre-clinical or clinical trials are presented.


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

    No


  • 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


  • 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?

    Tables or diagrams that compare different types of vaccines could do the presented material much more presentable.


  • 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 good constructed as a mini-review or lecture for students but it is not outstanding scientific review, becouse it does not include something new for discussion or new ideas, and the list of references is too small for rigorous review paper. I think, I'll use this information in my lectures for students.


  • 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:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have some experience in experimental immunotherapy of cancer with vaccines.

  • How to cite:  Shichkin V .Treating Cancer with Vaccine[Review of the article 'Treating Cancer with Vaccine ' by Bele T].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001967
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Treating Cancer with Vaccine -reviewed
Posted by Dr. Pankaj K Mishra on 29 Apr 2012 10:07:44 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? No
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? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The review on cancer vaccine is a very common topics of discussion. The author can provide a table showing different vaccine candidates. A graphical representation showing different vaccine and its downstream mechanism could have further added more informations to this subject.

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    1.R.Sabarinathan, P.K.Mishra, M.Geetha, R.B.Narayanan, M.V.R.Reddy, B.C.Harinath, Tom Nutman, P.Kaliraj, James Maccarthy “The larval specific lymphatic filarial ALT-2: induction of protection using Protein or DNA vaccination” Microbiology and Immunology, Vol 48, NO.12, 2004. 2. K.V.N.RajaRao, M.Gnanasekar, P.K.Mishra, P.Kaliraj, K.Ramswamy “A novel phage display-based subtractive screening to identify vaccine Candidates of Brugia malayi”, Infection and immunity 2004 Aug. 72(8): 4707-15 3.13. Eswaran D, Mishra P.K., Thirugnanam S., Gnanasekar M, Chandrasekar R, Mehta K, Kaliraj P “Molecular characterization of a Brugia malayi Transglutaminase”, Parasitol Res. 2004 Jun; 93(2): 145-150
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes I have worked on development of  vaccine in the form of recombinant protein, DNA vaccine and phage display antigens. I am also presently working on mechanism of protective immune response for more than 10 years.

  • How to cite:  Mishra P K.Treating Cancer with Vaccine -reviewed[Review of the article 'Treating Cancer with Vaccine ' by Bele T].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001751
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse