Submited on: 11 Oct 2012 09:31:07 PM GMT
Published on: 12 Oct 2012 06:24:04 PM GMT
 
Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 19 Oct 2012 12:03:21 PM GMT

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

    Main claims are below.

     

    Carcinoma of the breast in adolescents is a rare exception.  The numerous benign findings in young people are best evaluated by inexpensive sonographic imaging with clinical correlation.  This avoids unnecessary exposure to the radiation of a mammogram. Even fine needle aspiration and ultrasound guided core biopsy can have an adverse effect on the normal growth of the breast of an adolescent female


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

    Yes, it is novel from the above mentioned respects.


  • 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?

    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?

    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


  • Other Comments:

    This report is useful in the management in the breast lesions of the adolescent patients.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    Many years of experience

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast [Review of the article 'Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast ' by Hurwitz R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002306
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The main claim of the paper is that cancer of the breast is exceedingly rare in individuals under age 20 and that fibroadenomas, a benign condition are the most common tumors.  By far the majority are developmental.  This is correct and should provide support to clinicians who choose to follow patients rather than proceed to evaluation.  If persistent, ultrasound is the best test.  Biopsy and mammography is usually of no help  and can be avoided  in the ssome cases it can result in injury than can alter breast development.


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

    The claims are supported by data available in the medical literature.


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

    Yes.  The literature doesnt specifically address the role of imaging and followup as clearly.


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

    The author does not provide data to support the information and conclusion and was presumably meant as clinical information from years of clinical practice.


  • 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?

    The article is based on many years of clinical experience by the author.  The article would be beneficial to imaging physicians if it provided images of examples.  The role of ultrasound is beneficial in the premenarche child who may have premature sexual development and also in identifying "surfer's nodules" which present as painful palable masses without obvious history or skin bruising unless the appropriate clinical history is obtained.


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Clinical presentations and articles on several ultrasound topics.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Thomas R .Review of Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast.[Review of the article 'Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast ' by Hurwitz R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002299
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Important to realize common problem of gynecomastia in adolescents and methods of dealing with problem.Ultraasound in this age group is important modality in view of concerns re radiation


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

    No significant papers have dealt with this problem. the usual teaching is to reassure patients in this age group without further testing.  The author has brought up a benign way to reassure the patient and family.


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

    Yes == see above


  • 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?

    could mention what machines and point out the use of high frequency in view of the superficial location and the brevity of the exam


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    Good information but not outstanding work


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Fellow in aium, sru and acr.. numerous publications in ultrasound,numerous lectures worldwide in ultrasound

  • How to cite:  Miller E .Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast Review[Review of the article 'Sonography of the Pediatric and Adolescent Breast ' by Hurwitz R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002298
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse