-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
Submited on: 26 Jun 2012 04:57:17 AM GMT
Published on: 26 Jun 2012 09:13:19 PM GMT
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Renal artery variations, and it is moderately important
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No, as mentioned by author
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
NA
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
NA
-
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?
Yes, author stated out of 60 cadavers they gut 1 variation by accident so this is a case report. and the percentage is never examined.
-
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?
Poor paper
-
Other Comments:
NA
-
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:
Consultant and author in OBGYN
- How to cite: Othman M .Single Case [Review of the article 'Bilateral Multiple Renal Arteries - An Anatomical Study. ' by M M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001991
Renal artery variation and its importance
No. As stated by the authors the variations related with renal arteries are quite common.
Yes
Yes
NA
It may be considered valid, as it is a case report the variation is encountered during routine dissection
No
Not at all, the variations related with renal arteries are quite common and well documented in the literature.
Embryological emphasize is adequate. The clinical importance stated in the conclusion part is also adequate.
No
No
No
None
Clinical and radiologic anatomy