Submited on: 25 Jan 2013 03:22:35 PM GMT
Published on: 28 Jan 2013 11:07:17 AM GMT
Urinary Tract Infections in Geriatric Patients
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 11 Feb 2013 11:49:29 AM GMT

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

    This is a well written article in category “review”, focusing on Urinary tract infections in geriatric patients. The article fully and systematically describes all important aspects of these infections: epidemiology, etiology, pathogenesis, laboratory diagnosis and treatment.

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

    Although the claims are not novel, the author comprehensively covers all important aspects and specificities of UTI in elderly patients. The value of this article is the detailed presentation of the etiological (bacterial) spectrum of UTI in elderly patients as well as some of the recent trends regarding the antimicrobial resistance of the most important uropathogens.

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

    The review is in compliance with the previous literature,  however the cited authors in “References” should be more.

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

    Although the format of the article is review, inclusion of author's own results would be beneficial for the paper and will increase its value.

  • 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?

    There is no protocol provided and followed.

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    In the review – article there is no author's own methodology envisaged.

  • 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?

    There are no own or additional experiments provided, although provision of such will significantly improve the 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?

    There is no novelty in the article, however it could be used as a good reference regarding urinary tract infections in geriatric patients. This article surely adds to the knowledge in that field.

  • Other Comments:

    In several parts of the text “strain” has been incorrectly used instead of “species” . Also “coagulase negative streptococci” has been wrongly used instead of “coagulase negative staphylococci”.

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

    1. T. Stoeva, Bojkova, Bojkova, V. Snegarova, D. Paskalev. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in patients on haemodialysis and in medical stuff.  2010, 16,2; 37 – 40. 2. Bojkova M., K. Bojkova, T. Stoeva, V. Majova. Etiology of urinary tract infections and antimicrobial resistance of most common uropathogens in hospitalized and ambulatory patients - a comparative study for the period 2005 - 2009. , 2011, XIII, 1: 22-27.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Urinary Tract Infections in Geriatric Patients[Review of the article 'Urinary Tract Infections in Geriatric Patients ' by Staykova S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002504
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse