-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
,
Dr. Reda Allah Bassir 
,
Prof. Mohamed Kharmaz
,
Prof. My Omar Lamrani
,
Prof. Ahmed Elbardouni
,
Prof. Mustapha Mahfoud
,
Prof. Mohamed Saleh Berrada
,
Prof. Moradh Elyaacoubi
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors reported their experience in treating synovial chondromatoses of the knee joint. Radiological diagnosis (X-rays and MRI) is definitely of prime importance in this condition. Arthroscopy is treatment of choice. The authors could have presented it in abetter way. We commonly come across synovial chondromatosis of the knee joint in our dail practice.What the authors have concluded is not different from standard literature.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
As already mentioned, the author could have presented it in a better way.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Good, but can be improved.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
The result should be discussed properly and thoroughly.
-
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?
No
-
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?
Methodoly and result is the main substance of a paper. The study and findings are not properly described.
-
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 outstanding. As mentioned before, the content and findings of the article is not different from standard literature.
-
Other Comments:
Better English, proper scientific language and adequate description of study methods and results are essential to make a readable. This paper have substantial deficit in these contents.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
My area of interest.
- How to cite: Anonymous.Review on: Chondromatoses of the large Joints[Review of the article 'Chondromatoses the of the large joints (A Report of 8 cases) ' by Elyaacoubi M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002186
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Rarity of the condition and lead to osteoarthritis if not detected and treated early
The claims are not novel
Yes
Yes
Nil
Is a case report
No
No. the language of presentation is weak
The article is difficult to read and understand due to its weak command of English language. Also important points were missing in the case presentation- the individual characteristics of the patients and their responses to intervention.
None
No
No
None
As an orthopaedic surgeon, one comes across this condition in clinical practice.