Submited on: 02 Nov 2012 12:24:21 AM GMT
Published on: 18 Nov 2012 06:24:07 AM GMT
 
Choanal Atresia a Literature Review
Posted by Dr. Vincenza Rita Lo Vasco on 21 Nov 2012 09:10:46 AM GMT

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

    This is a very useful article for the diagnosis and management of choanal atresia. The review offers indications for further diagnostic manouvres in order to verify whther the CA is isolated or associated in a more complex syndrome. Alhtough useful, the discussion begins as too schematic. Something more might be added in the history section.


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

    It is a review and does not add novelties to the literature data.


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

    The history section might be improved.


  • 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?

    The diagnostic protocol is properly indicated.


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Yes


  • Other Comments:

    This is a very useful article for the diagnosis and management of choanal atresia. The review offers indications for further diagnostic manouvres in order to verify whther the CA is isolated or associated in a more complex syndrome. Alhtough useful, the discussion begins as too schematic. Something more might be added in the history section.

  • Competing interests:
    Nil
  • 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:

    Clinical genetics

  • How to cite:  Lo Vasco V .Choanal Atresia a Literature Review[Review of the article 'Choanal Atresia a Literature Review ' by Kothandaraman S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002341
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    No specific claims are made but the importance knowing the embryological anatomy of the area and a high index of suspicion in diagnosing this condition is stressed.


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

    NA


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

    This is only a review of the existing literature.The topic of choanal atresia is comprehensively dealt with and they have tried to compile vast information into this article.


  • 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?

    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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    This is a review article and precisely that is what is done.For the ent students they can assess this compilation for improving their knowledge on choanal atresia.

  • Competing interests:
    Nil
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an ENT surgeon and a teaching faculty and have experience in dealing with such cases.

  • How to cite:  Gopalakrishnan S .Review of Article on Choanal Atresia[Review of the article 'Choanal Atresia a Literature Review ' by Kothandaraman S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002337
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Choanal Atresia a Literature Review
Posted by Dr. Ulaganathan Venkatesan on 18 Nov 2012 01:11:34 PM GMT

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

    To describe the etiology and the management of ZChoanal atrsia


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

    Coverge of the article is good useful for practising Otorhinolaryngologists


  • 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?

    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


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Satisfactory with full coverage and brief 


  • Other Comments:

    Brief and conscise narration of the etiology and the pracical methods available for nthe management of Choanal atrsia. Useful with clear ideas Could have included explanatory pictures or diagramatic pictures of steps of surgery etc

  • 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:

    I am a practicing Otorhinolaryngologist and a teacher for both Undergraduates and postgraduates

  • How to cite:  Venkatesan U .Choanal Atresia a Literature Review[Review of the article 'Choanal Atresia a Literature Review ' by Kothandaraman S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002335
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse