Submited on: 31 Jul 2012 08:53:37 PM GMT
Published on: 01 Aug 2012 04:09:55 PM GMT
 

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

    Main claims:

    1. The condition is rare in the young.

    2. Low fiber diet is implicated as cause

    3. Early recognition will help to avoid adverse outcome.

    4. Mimics Ovarian Mass

    5. No definite diagnostic tests/ criteria

    6. For correct diagnosis surgical exploration is essential.


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

    The references for low fiber diet as the contributing factor in the young, and surgical exploration is the only means to diagnose - are not provided.


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

    Yes. But the some of the statements made are not supported by the references.


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

    It is only a case report. The findings will add on to the available literature to build up the claims.


  • 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?

    Yes, for a case report.


  • 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 could not access the figure showing operative findings. Images of ultrasonography and CT would have added some merit to the report.


  • 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:

    Nil

  • 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:

    Consultant ObGy; Professor

  • How to cite:  Kushtagi P .Review of Case Report: Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass[Review of the article 'Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass ' by Soummani A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002222
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 29 Aug 2012 09:03:01 AM GMT

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

    This is  case report mentioning the difficulty of diagnosis of colonic diverticulus and the confusion the condition creates with an ovarian mass. Although important the claims cannot be justified by a single case report.


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

    Not very new as also mentioned in the references mentioned in this paper


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

    Partly


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

    Results from a single case report does not justify the claims


  • 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?

    Sufficient for a case report


  • 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?

    Analysis of many similar cases would be useful


  • 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?

    A routine case report


  • Other Comments:

    No conclusion is drawn in the MS

  • 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:

    None

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass [Review of the article 'Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass ' by Soummani A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002210
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Diverticulitis are difficult to diagnose and can mimmic ovarian mass

    that is an important claim


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

    No this claims are not novel and most authors who wrote on diverticulitis made the same claim


  • 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 results 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?

    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?

    Is there is CT or MRI scanes done


  • 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, there is confusion on the patient age and details of the US scan are not complete, also, no mension of any other types of scan.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • 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:

    Ob&Gyn consultant and Author

  • How to cite:  Othman M .Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass [Review of the article 'Giant Colonic Diverticulitis in Young Patient Mimicking an Ovarian Mass ' by Soummani A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002195
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse