-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors made urethral dilatation in prostactetomized patients. Their claim is important.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No, they are not novel. urethral dilatation is the normal procedure for urethral striction.
There are many articles reporting the use of this technique. I include two of them.
Veeratterapillay R, Pickard RS. Long-term effect of urethral dilatation and internal urethrotomy for urethral strictures. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(6):467-73.
Wani BN, Jajoo SN, Bhole AM. Outcome of urethral strictures managed by general surgeons in a rural setting of India. Indian J Surg. 2011;73(5):336-40.
-
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?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
-
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?
No
-
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. This paper deals on a routinary method used in many parts of the world and do not add any new knowledge
-
Other Comments:
No
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
No
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None
- How to cite: Ledesma-Montes C .Postprostatectomy Urethral Structure in Elderly Nigerians.[Review of the article 'Postprostatectomy Urethral Stricture in Elderly Nigerians ' by Njeze G].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002288
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors claim that urethral dilation is the treatment modality for urethral strictures
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No, the claim authors provide are not novel, nothing is new in this modality of treatment, they have written nothing about the diagnostic strategies and the length of strictures. Whether the stricture was short segment or long segment is also not mentioned. No mention of urodynamic studies was done.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
No
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes, other evidence is required. How they prove that treatment is efective when they had not done any objective test to prove this claim. No mention what imaging or urodynamic studies was done after the performed dilatation.
-
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?
Not valid. Selection cirteria is not defined.
-
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?
Unofrtunately, paper is not written in a good manner. It needs a wholesole revision- both from methodology as well as grammar
-
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 are many shortcomings I described above
-
Other Comments:
Nil
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Agrawal R, Chaurasia D, Jain M. Webbed penis: a rare case. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2010;8:95-6
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Anonymous.Postprostatectomy Urethral Stricture in Elderly Nigerians: critical review[Review of the article 'Postprostatectomy Urethral Stricture in Elderly Nigerians ' by Njeze G].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002286
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
To study post prostatectomy urethral stricture in elderly nigerians
Yes
No
No
No
NA
The article is actually a straight forward typical post procedure method. there is no new message given through this article. the discussion is very short as this is time tested procedure in post prostatectomy patients.
No
No
0
No
No
None
In charge of cancer program of my institute. Our urologist also follow same protocol in similar situations.