Submited on: 24 Jun 2013 05:51:02 PM GMT
Published on: 25 Jun 2013 04:55:12 AM GMT
 

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

    The main claim is that the ultrasound scan is the best modality for evaluation and follow-up of GB polyp

     


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

    NO! Since the day of introduction of ultrasound into the medical diagnosis, it is well known for GB studies!


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

    No! Some refernce work has been done. But,  the results of the current study is not properly correlated with previous literature and not presented in a scientific way!The author has preferred to quote only references. He has not given the facts derived from his study except two facts.The statistical facts given in references quoted by the author are not reflecting the true incidences or prevalence of gallbladder polyps.


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

    No Separate title/ chapter for results.

    The paper has no details of the result of the study. He has not given the facts derived from his study except three points:

    1. A total of 24 cases with gallbladder polyps (0.621%) with 10 males and 14 females, with a ratio M / F - 1/1.4.
    2. In five cases of gallbladder polyps have been associated with biliary sludge and
    3. In three cases have been associated with calculus gallbladder.


  • 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! This is a study without any specified protocol!


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

    The author has not mentioned any detail about the methodology followed in his study. What were the selection criteria?

    Reviewed data collected regarding patients’/subjects' gender, age, symptoms, serum cholesterol levels, serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, serum triglyceride levels etc were not given

    No data given regarding the following:

    How patients were prepared for GB study?

    What was the type of probe used?

    Was it confirmed by any additional methods of ultrasonography studies such as transesophageal probe, high resolution images, Harmonic images etc?


  • 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?

    Usage of esophageal endoscopic probes, harmonic ultrasonography imaging study, high-resolution study etc. will improve the validity of the study and its outcome.


  • 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?

    Not at all!


  • Other Comments:

    No radiological description given about polyps involved in this study.

    Number of polyps, single or multiple? What was the size range

    Nothing was mentioned about the respective GB. Elongated, contracted, walls thickened or not? Regular or irregular? Associated with cholecystitis or not? How was the cystic/CBD?

    This paper might have been hurriedly prepared. No recommended method has been followed by the author in writing this article for journal publication.

    It is very difficult to interpret any useful scientific facts out of this study. The author has preferred to quote only references. He has not given the facts derived from his study except two facts. Was it a retrospective study or prospective? What was the duration of the study?

    The author has mentioned that he has examined 3680 ambulatory patients? What type of patients? What type of examinations? Nothing is mentioned.3680 patients in how many months or years?

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

    I have delivered many lectures in many CME programs on this topic

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have 36 years of experience in this field of diagnostic Radiology

  • How to cite:  Abdul Kareem M M.Evaluation and Ultrasound Follow-up of Gallbladder[Review of the article 'Evaluation and Ultrasound Follow-up of Gallbladder Polyps ' by Totozani D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002784
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Main claim is superiority of real time USG in characterisation of GB polyps. Claims are already well established and nothing new in this article.


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

    The claims are established and discussed facts. There is voluminous literature regarding this.


  • 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?

    The use of B scale USG helps to characterise GB polyp morphologically and the size criteria. No further aspect is added given the fact that majority are asymptomatic and benign.


  • 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 protocol is provided.


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

    No


  • 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 paper is of no use in context to todays's scenario of advance imaging tools available.


  • 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:

    Very ordinary and oudated paper. No clinical information added.

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

    Dwivedi AN, Kumar S, Rana S, Maurya B. Transmural invasion of hepatic flexure of colon causing cholecystocolic fistula by aggressive gallbladder carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2013 Apr 16; 11(1):86.PMID 23590823 Amit N Dwivedi,Manoj Pandey,R C Shukla,V K Shukla,Saurabh Gaharwar,B N Maurya. Biological behavior and disease pattern of carcinoma gall bladder shown on 64 slice CT scanner: Hospital based retrospective observational study and our experience. Indian J Cancer 2012 July;49(3):303-308.IF 0.961.PMID 23238149

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have national and international paper published in the field of GB pathologies.

  • How to cite:  Dwivedi A .Evaluation and Ultrasound Follow-up of Gallbladder Polyps[Review of the article 'Evaluation and Ultrasound Follow-up of Gallbladder Polyps ' by Totozani D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002779
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse