-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
By
Dr. Bassir A Bassir 
,
Dr. Lahcen Boukhanni 
,
Dr. Mouna Kouchani
,
Prof. Badia Belabidia
,
Prof. Hamid Asmouki
,
Prof. Abderraouf Soummani
,
Dr. Lahcen Boukhanni
,
Dr. Mouna Kouchani
,
Prof. Badia Belabidia
,
Prof. Hamid Asmouki
,
Prof. Abderraouf Soummani
Submited on: 26 Sep 2012 11:09:34 AM GMT
Published on: 26 Sep 2012 01:47:17 PM GMT
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Claims that skin metastasis is rare, and extremely small review and report
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Not novel, all the referrences in the paper have the same claims
-
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?
No, and even more than once author mentioned incidence is rare.
-
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 protocol
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
No methodology
-
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?
Every thing missing in this paper
-
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?
Outstanding in being poor
-
Other Comments:
1. Needs information on the reported case and more details
2. Any review needs protocol and atleast abit of analysis
-
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:
Author, Editor and Consultant of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- How to cite: Othman M .Cutaneous Metastasis from Endometrial Adenocarcinoma Case Report and Literature Review[Review of the article 'Cutaneous Metastasis from Endometrial Adenocarcinoma Case Report and Literature Review ' by Soummani A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002255
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Case report of metastasis to skin from endometrial adenocarcinoma
Although the authors claim it to be novel, in their own references they have stated the references quoting metastasis to skin from endometrial tumors.
No
The outcome of therapy is not described for the study and not discussed.
Not applicable
Only partly
I think the resul of therapy would be important for readers.
No nothing very novel
General Comments
The manuscript needs plenty of revision in language and grammar.
Abstract
2nd line – instead of “incidence is unknown”, “incidence is poorly described” would be more correct
5th line – “six months after” could be rewritten as “six months later”
Introduction
1. 2nd line: “2, 7” should be “2.7 “
2. 3rd line: “recent year” should be “recent years”
3. 7th line: “1, 1 “should be “1.1 “
4. 9th line: “reported” should be “report”
Case Report
The title should be “Case Report” instead “Case Report(s)”
5th line – “The patient was lost sight of; she did not receive additional treatment.” should be rewritten as “The patient did not receive additional treatment nor reported.”
7th line – “6/3 cm” could be better expressed as “6X3 cm”
9th line – apparently “figure 2” should be “figure 1”
12th line – needs restructuring e.g. “The patient received chemotherapy with Dexorubicin (60 mg/m2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m2) in addition to radiotherapy (50 Gy).”
Further, the outcome/continuation of the therapy should be mentioned.
Discussion
2nd line – The sentence “The incidence is unknown.” be better deleted.
7th line – “10,7%” and “8,9%” should be written as “10.7%” and “8.9%” respectively.
11th line – instead of the archaic expression “chirurgical”, the more common “surgical” should be used.
14th line – “indicating” could be “indicates”
15th line – “prognosis, it” could be replaced with a “prognosis; it”
References
Needs to be rewritten; following a single consistent, style and pattern.
Illustrations
“Illustration 1” and “Illustration 2” headings are unnecessary and should be done away with.
Titles should have the first letter of the first word as capital letter.
No
No
No
None
No specific