Submited on: 08 Jun 2012 08:47:58 PM GMT
Published on: 09 Jun 2012 04:05:26 PM GMT
 
Review of Prostatic Calculi
Posted by Prof. Akanimo Essiet on 08 Jul 2012 07:46:53 PM GMT

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

    Prostatic Calculi coexist with chronic prostatits, benign prostatic enlargement and sometimes carcinoma of the prostate gland. There are no pathognomonic features specific to prostatic calculi


  • 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?

    Not applicable


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

    Not 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?

    Not 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?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    Fairly informative review paper, but with a rather unwieldy discussion. All the information contained therein could be captured in a much less lengthy paper.

  • 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:

    Practicing Urologist in an academic setting

  • How to cite:  Essiet A .Review of Prostatic Calculi[Review of the article 'Prostatic Calculi: A Review of the Literature ' by Venyo A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002047
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Prostatic calculi & its review of literature.

    important.


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

    Yes. claim is 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?

    No.


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

    Actually no specific methodology is observed.


  • 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?

    Discussion appeared very long. it could have been short & focussed. the paper showed good data review without giving actual clinical significance of it. use of few tables or pie charts would have made the paper very readable.


  • 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. except good data this article is not helpful in clinical management of bph patients nor it changes current treatment protocols.


  • 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:

    BPH management

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.Prostatic Calculi : A Review of Literature [Review of the article 'Prostatic Calculi: A Review of the Literature ' by Venyo A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002040
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
good but long review
Posted by Dr. Ahmed F Kotb on 09 Jun 2012 06:56:43 PM GMT

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

    prostatic calculi. the claim itself is good but really not much important, as its value is questionable.


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

    the claim is 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?

    no


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

    no details on methodology of data collection


  • 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?

    i think that work is good but it could be better if the discussion part was more concised. it is long and distracting.


  • 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 would be nice to see that work, with some modifications in the way of data presentation


  • Other Comments:

    keep going

  • 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:

    Uro-oncological surgeon

  • How to cite:  Kotb A F.good but long review[Review of the article 'Prostatic Calculi: A Review of the Literature ' by Venyo A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001899
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse