-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Main aims are met.
-
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?
Yes.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Review article.
-
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?
No but it is informative.
-
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:
Worked extensively in neuro-rehabilitation.
- How to cite: Thompson S B.Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: Review[Review of the article 'Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: A Comparison Between Coiling and Clipping ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002727
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Compare two methods in treatment of above
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
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?
No
-
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?
Study is good and inovative
Cost factor is not addressed
The conclussion remains vague and not clear
-
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:
None
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
No
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
NA
- How to cite: Anonymous.Subarachnoid Haemorrhage- A Comparison Between Coiling and Clipping[Review of the article 'Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: A Comparison Between Coiling and Clipping ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002725
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
To compare between two methods in treatment of SAH
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
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?
No
-
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?
It is a good study, however author has not mentioned how many studies/cases he has studied retrospectively. Also, the conclusion is not clear. the study fails to come to any concrete conclusion because it does not address cost factor more seriously which plays a crucial role in developing countries. two procedures are done by two different consultants [neurosurgeons & radiologist] which confuses the scenario.
-
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:
No
-
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:
This typical dilemma we have encountered in SAH where cost plays crucial role for us.
- How to cite: Belekar D M.Subarachanoid Haemorrhage: A Comparison Between Coiling & Clipping[Review of the article 'Subarachnoid Haemorrhage: A Comparison Between Coiling and Clipping ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002691
1. To compare and contrast the two techniques used to treat an intracranial haemorrhage
2. Evaluating rates of complications of these procedures, reasons for the complications and ways to reduce their incidence
3. To evaluate the effectiveness & efficiency of both coiling and clipping. will be considered
No!
Yes!
No specific results are given. This study is just a Reference/Review study of the selected literature. However the author has concluded the superiority of one method of treatment over the other. The paper does not elaborate on how the author got that conclusion!
The author has studied 382 cases (233 +100 + 49)
This is a Review study without any specific protocol!
No specific methodology! No design!
The author has mentioned the following:
1. Key words were entered into a medical database called Pubmed.
2. Books relating to the subject of discussion were obtained from the Harold Cohen Library, such as “Subarachnoid Haemorrhage” by Maurice-Williams.
Many details are lacking, Some of them are listed here:
How many bks? How many articles reviewed?
Specific Period of review of journals and/or books published
What criterion followed in reviewing?
How many authors involved in the review?
Interobserver/intraobserver disparity and consensus?
How many aneurysms Ruptured and/or unruptured?
Types of aneurysms?
The quality of the previous studies and how they were evaluated
Any odds ratio (OR) was calculated / meta-analysis method for each study outcome.
Was there any assessment of heterogeneity of the papers/articles used for the review
Any score system followed?
A proper meticulous systemic review would improve the outcome of the study
No! A few important theoretical points can be quoted
Many previous studies were systematic reviews of only a single interventional method and did not compare and contrast the merits and demerits of one intervention with another. Therefore, the present study is welcome despite many shortcomings.
This paper is mostly theoretical! No detailed data analysis had been done.
Many more electronic databases should have been searched, including major international databases and African, Korean and Japanese databases etc.
Outcome of each type of treatment studied should have been highlighted with statistics. Directly comparable outcome measures for endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping such as Disability, overall death, in-hospital mortality, and other complications such as bleeding or haematoma in the brain, ischemia or infarction, cerebral vessel damage, cerebrospinal fluid fistula, infection, cranial nerve disorder, cognitive impairment, encephalitis, meningitis, embolism, cardiac disease and pulmonary disease could have been categorised.
None
No
Yes
Many lectures were given on this topic; Many papers supervised and a few were presented
36 years of experience in the field