WebmedCentral.com :: Article Review View

Posted by Dr. Simon B Thompson on 21 May 2013 10:20:24 AM GMT

What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors have attempted to review the main cerebral vasculitides.
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No.
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

No. Many ommissions.
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?

Yes, much more literature should have been reviewed.
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, not at all.
Other Comments:
Very thin in terms of inclusion of relevant literature. Not very much detail.
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:

Neurorehabilitation.
How to cite: Thompson S B.Cerebral Vasculitides - A Review[Review of the article 'Cerebral vasculitides and non-arteriosclerotic vasculopathies: A Theoretical Review ' by Vyshka G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002738

Rating
Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Report abuse

Review

Posted by Prof. Kulvinder K Kaur on 28 Mar 2013 05:03:34 AM GMT

What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The authors have tried to sum up the main cerebral vasculitides of promary and secondary originalong with main nonatheromatous vasculopathies like CADASIL,Moya moya sundrome and fibromuscular dysplasia and tried to sum up that with this they have completed review of several updated bibliographic sources regarding classification of various vasculitides which are relied on histological/anatomical-pathological classifications.However although they have given a concise version of primary and systemiv vasculitides using size of vessel like aorta and arteries of large diameter(Takayasus,Aereritis temporalis horton, Churg Strauss vasculitis/arteries of middle and small diameter(Wegeners granulomatis,Behcets syndrome,Kawasaki vasculitis,primary CNS vasculitis or small arteries and arterioles(secondary vasculitis collagenosis,leukoctoclastis vasculitis with CADASIL being one of small vessel predominantly-the review is not complete unless they mention about differentiation between true vasculitides from a condition known as reversible cerebral vasoconstrictor syndrome(RCVS)also although in the table they have made a passing reference of collagenosis they have not specified systemic collagen diseases besides sjogren syndrome as one of the causes and various infections like herpes simplex, histoplasmosis,neuroborrelosis as the infectious category causing the same ,malignant atrophic papulosis(Kohlmeier Dagos disease although they have summed up CADASIL well.
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
NO-
1)Lopez JI,Holdridge A,Chalea J.Headache and vasculitis.Curr Pain Headache Rep 2013;17(3)320 where differentiate true causes of vasculitides,primary CNS vasculitis,systemic necrotizing arteritis,granulomatous vasculitis,suystemic collagen disease and d/d of true cerebral vasculitides as RCVS.
2)Guerrero WR,Dababneh H,Hedna S,Johnson JA,Peters K,Waters MF.Vessel wall enhancement in herpes simplex virus central nervous vasculitis.J Clin Neurosci 2013;Mar 18pii S967-5868-EPUB AHEAD OF PRINT where cerebral vasculitis &ischaemic stroke sec to HSV and basilar art stenosis.
3)Back T,Grunig S,Winter Y,Bodechtel U,Guthke K,Khati D,von Kummer R-Neroborrelosis-associated cerebral vasculitis:longterm outcomeand health related quality of life.J Neurol2013;jAN 18,EPUB ahead of print.-role of neuroborrelosis in vascullitis
4)Theodoris A,Makrantonaki E,Zouboulis CC.Malignant atrophic papulosis(Kohlmeier-Dagos disease)-a review.Orphanet J Rare Dis 2013;jAN 14;8:10.-A thrombo-obliterative vasculopathy characterixzed by papular skin lesions with central porcelain whote atrophy and surrounding telangiectatic rim.
5)Gowdie P,Twilt M,Benseler SM.Primary and secondary central nervous system vasculitis.J Child Neurol 2012;27:1448-1459.details of vasculitis in children.
6)Kokolov OV,Tikhonova LA,Bakulev AL,Sholomov II,Zuev VV,Kolesnikov AI.Syphilitic cerebral vasculitus:diagnostic possibilities.Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im SS Korsakova 2012;112:11-7.and many articles on CADASIL,others on histoplasmosis,creutz jegher syndrome as d/d.etc
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?

To complete the review all causes should be included to be succesful in their endeavour to complete the previous reviews for causes of cerebral vasculitides and mention the detail of RCVS/L-37 as a differential diagnosis as it is very important as that gets reversed immediately with proper diagnosis.
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?

It is just a theoretical review.
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

A theoretical review only.although currently PRISMA is required for all reviews for significance which is not provided.
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?

Yes, providing the extra causes would complete the update on causes concisely put together with highlighting of CADASIL which has been done well in a brief summed up review,and it is not difficult to do so.
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-it just provides a brief resume of all causes with lots of causes not included.
Other Comments:
The author has mainly highlighted CADASIL a syndrome which was diagnosed in early 9's and same group found chromosome19 and then notch3 gene as the important causative factor and then lot of further work has been done in phenotyping and genotyping in various countries with migraine,stroke ,dementia occuring in different generations although special notch 3 mutation can cause it early as well and muscle and skin biopsy diagnose the GOL and notch 3 extracellular domain and affecting cysteine residuesonly.Some animal studies show widespread neuronal apoptosis secondary to caspase 3 activation and possibility that programmed cell death and impairment of cholinergic neurons responsible for cortical atrophy although mechanism of action of mutated notch 3 receptors in destruction of vascular smooth muscle cells and clinivcal syndrome of CADASIL remains uncertain.
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:

Practice mainly gynaecological neuroendocrinology although when treating infertility deal withall types of patients with any medical complication and presented paper in world congress of neurology -7th IBRO World congress in australia ON OBESITY related to altered hypothalamo-pit axis vs autonomic nervous system in obesity in 2007.
How to cite: Kaur K K.Review[Review of the article 'Cerebral vasculitides and non-arteriosclerotic vasculopathies: A Theoretical Review ' by Vyshka G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002645

Rating
Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Report abuse

Reviews