Submited on: 31 Jan 2013 07:12:32 AM GMT
Published on: 31 Jan 2013 01:44:47 PM GMT
 

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

    Pregnancy induced pulmonary hypertension (PIH) is a serious and significant problem that deserves attention with the hope of developing novel strategies in its clinical management. The present paper has found small alterations in blood antioxidants as a function of PIH, suggesting degradation of oxidant buffering capacity. Their findings are consistent with previous reports and suggest that supplementation may be beneficial. 


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

    No, the paper supports previsouly published work.


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

    Their findings are consistent with previous reports.


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

    They provide weak support for the idea that PIH decreases oxidant capacity of the the blood


  • 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?

    This is fine


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

    This is fine.


  • 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?

    This paper has only a small amount of data, but indicates that futre studies are warrented.


  • 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:

    NA

  • 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:

    Some

  • How to cite:  Edwards J G.Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension[Review of the article 'Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension ' by Jayaram S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002565
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 paper claims changes in antioxidant enzyme profiles in pregnancy induced hypertension. It is important to study this aspect.


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

    The claims are not novel at all. It has been tested extensively by other researchers elsewhere. The present authors of this manuscript are also stating their data are in agreement with the other authors in the reference. Thus it is not a novel study.  This study is rather supportive and regenerating the same data as studied by others. The present paper does not show any new data compared to previously investigated studies by other authors.


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

    Data presented in this paper reviews some previous literature and mentions moderately previous literature in this area, but does not critically evaluate it based on their own study and earlier results published by other investigators, as well discrepancies observed in some other studies are also not discussed.


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

    The result obtained does not support the claims. It is because there is no significant changes in the data shown in this paper. Evidene of claimed changes are required. However, it is not novel, just repetition of other investigator’s work to confirm the situation of hypertension during pregnancy.


  • 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?

    Protocol used is appropriate.


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

    Methodology appears to be valid. Only one thing about the units for the measurement for SOD is described as “U/mL” and for glutathione peroxidase it is described as “U/L”. However, “U” is not defined. There is also no necessary for illustration # 4 or illustration # 5. This is a repetition of the same data. Either illustration # 4 or # 5 can be used. Units for systolic and diastolic blood pressure and for MAP are not described in the method  section as well as in the Tables/illustrations.


  • 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?

    Consideration of other new parameters, not studied before, are of importance and could be relevant in this context. It is the authors choice to choose the parameters to study this in depth.

     

    Systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressures are shown in the illustration # 1. However, this table does not show the levels of significance by indicating it in the table, although it is mentioned in the text.  It is important to show it as well in all tables including this one.

     

    The claim for a significant change in the SOD activity among the groups is also absolutely incorrect. It appears statistical calculations are completely wrong. Using the data provided in this paper I calculated it and it does not show any levels of significance.


  • 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?

    This paper is not all outstanding in its discipline.


  • Other Comments:

    The authors of this manuscript need training on how to write a peer-reviewed paper and develop their skills in writing. There are few grammatical mistakes in the manuscript which are most time easyliy fixed. Paper should be written and communicated for the advancement of scientific knowledge. This paper does not do that. This paper is misleading in claims that the authors are observing some changes in their data. This paper should be retracted and scored poorest. Although the hypothesis and the methodlogy used in this paper are good approaches, planing and designing the experiments leading to claim the hypothesis sought can be improved extensively. Proper use data by correctly analyzign it statistically is also very important for its significance. The author should have checked their statistical calculation before their claim of changes particularly in the SOD activity. Use of prper units for data are important too.

  • 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:

    Research and teaching experience in the area of biochemistry is more than 23+ years.

  • How to cite:  Sarkar P K.Role of Superoxide Dismutase and Glutathione Peroxidase, in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension[Review of the article 'Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension ' by Jayaram S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002557
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Antioxidant status or SOD and GPx enzyme alterations are risk of high BP in PIH.

     

    Certainly the mensifestations of antioxidant status are immediate warrant signs of hypertension specially in pregnancy but this point is not supported in study design. 

     

    Poor statistical analysis shown in results for GPx enzyme does not support the antioxidant status as risk. While it is the primary enzyme affected most by loss of antioxidant action.


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

    Claims are imcomplete due to incomplete data analysis but appear sound in conceptual sense. For example, no change in GPx may indicate the pro-oxidant action also. Claims are weak due to very brief results are shown in support without proper mention of power test, comparative statistics, reproducibility, positive/negative predictive values, accuracy etc. Novalty is not reflected in whole paper. 


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

    Yes, to some extent


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

    to some extent


  • 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?

    I think only preliminary evidence is shown in this paper.


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

    Yes, as using biochemical enzyme assay


  • 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?

    In clinical set up, it is OK. For biochemistry standpoint, it is below average experiment and difficult too.


  • 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:

    For priliminary evidence, it is OK to put forth the chances of risk due to loss of antioxidant status

  • Competing interests:
    none
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Molecular and Cell Biol. 2010, 343:37–47.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Sharma R .Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension[Review of the article 'Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension ' by Jayaram S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002556
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 28 Feb 2013 02:46:36 PM GMT

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

    The authors claim that SOD plays a role on PIH. Although the literature on the subject is at least controverse, it is a relevant topic.


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

    Taking into consideration the lack of agreement between the data available in the literature, the claims would be at best, interesting.


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

    The discussion, is at best, anetoctal. Firstly, is widely speculative. Then, discusses correlations that  have not been shown, but most importantly, the work discusses Super-Oxide dismutase enzymes and how they relate to PIH.

    Any biochemist will point that there are several distinct SOD enzymes, requiring different mettalic co-factors (from copper to zinc). This is never approached, although difficiences  in such co-factors are quite common during pregnancy.


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

    In first place, the data is poorly analyzed, or at least, interpreted.The authors claim that "there is a significat difference between SOD levels on NP and PIH". How can anyone truelly state such claim, when values of 140+/- 37 (or ranging from 103 to 177) vs 213+/-68 (or ranging from 145 to 281) intercept.


  • 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?

    BMI estimation c an be computed in several ways. This should be specified. The glucose and urea blood and urine levels are important, since the levels of plasmatic enzymes could be influenced by such parameters.


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

    This point is also critical, since the are too few details on the experiments performed. This should be detailed, specially on which substractes were used (quantity, brand, chemical purity), and how were the kinetic values estimated, which kind of kinetics did the enzymes present.


  • 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?

    For this work has a chance of making anyone believe in the results presented, the authors should do one of tow things: Or intensivelly re-write, toning down their claims (taking the chance to improve english (at least appears several times as "atleast"), and taking a litle more care in presentation of data (poor table and figure formating, missing lagends for anacronysms).

    Another option is to widen the study to include more subjects (and enzymatic measurements should be repeated at least 4 times for each sample!), and the kinetic data from the mesuarements should be shown.


  • 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?

    At the present form, this paper does not qualify for even being published.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    Oxidative stress research

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension[Review of the article 'Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension ' by Jayaram S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002548
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 claims are increased oxidative stress in pregnancy induced hypertension. The claims are important to introduce a novel cause of hypertension in pregnancy.


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

    These claims are not novel. A lot of research work has already been done on similar topics.


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

    The claims are not well placed. The true oxidative stress has not been determined that could have been done by simeltaneous estimation of MDA (Malon dialdehyde ) levels.There are no latest references. As per new references,SOD level increases with the increae in the degree of oxidative stress, due to induction of the enzyme. The clear logic of decreased SOD level as reported by other studies has also not been reported. 

    The biochemical basis of near normal GPx level has also not been stated well.

    There are no satisfactory explanations for the mechainsm of oxidative imbalance induced hypertension.


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

    Yes the claims support the results, but results have not been well presented, the tables and figures are not explanatory in themselves.


  • 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 author has provided the variations in the enzyme levels as reported by different studies.


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

    Yes , the methodology is valid and well presented.


  • 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 could hav been better by taking in to account, MDA and catalase levels and by estimation of albumin creatinine ratio. The discussion and presenttaion of the data is very weak,it could have been better.


  • 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?

    It is a weak paper, lot of improvement is needed.


  • Other Comments:

    The study could have been more meaningful and interesting by including more number of biochemical parameters and by supporting the results by latest references.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/3695

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Chhabra N .Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension[Review of the article 'Estimation of Primary Enzymatic Antioxidants in Pregnancy Induced Hypertension ' by Jayaram S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002475
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse