Submited on: 02 Aug 2013 05:43:48 PM GMT
Published on: 03 Aug 2013 07:54:45 AM GMT
 

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

    The author focuses the main roles of ultrasound in solving clinical problems related to pleural disease


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

    Many other review paper on pleural and thoracic ultrasound have been already written. No substantial new information have been reported by this paper


  • 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 author reports just a descriptive review. Few numeric data are reported but in my opinion are required data about specificity and sensibility, incidence of complication in pleural interventional procedures.


  • 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?

    Not applicable


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

    Not applicable 


  • 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 a a short but sufficiently detailed panorama of the clinical application of pleural ultrasound. I suggest to add numerical data and to expand the section about pneumothorax (actually it is confined in the conclusion with few words


  • 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?

    The paper could be a short, general review for an initial interest on pleural ultrasound, but it is too concise to be defined "outstanding"


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Respiration 2013, eur rev med phramacol res 2013

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Use of pleural ultrasonography since 2005

  • How to cite:  Zanforlin A .The role of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pleural disorders[Review of the article 'The Role of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pleural Disorders ' by Vyshka G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002842
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 author's claims about role of ultrasound in diagnsosi of pleural disorders are acceptable due to wide applicality of ultrasound and advances in ultrasound equipments.


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

    No, we cant comment properly as no statistical data is provided in this study


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

    Yes almost.


  • 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 such protocol is discussed.


  • 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?

    Yes-there are many studies available in literature on same topic


  • 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?

    Its an excellent attempt but we cant say it to be extra-ordinary.


  • Other Comments:

    A statistical study with analysis and techniques or protocols could be better option. 

  • 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:

    18 years

  • How to cite:  Gilani S A.The Role of Ultrasonographgy in the diagnosis of Pleural Disorders[Review of the article 'The Role of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pleural Disorders ' by Vyshka G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002822
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Pleural sonography is an easily performable, feasible and reliable diagnostic tool, very helpful toward diagnosing pleural disorders, thickening, effusions and tumoral processes. Sonography might be helpful even in other situations, such as pulmonary embolism or when a pneumothorax is suspected.


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

    It is not novel but it is a summary.


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

    Properly placed.


  • 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?

    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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • 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:

    I have experience.

  • How to cite:  Aribas B .Review on The Role of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pleural Disorders[Review of the article 'The Role of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pleural Disorders ' by Vyshka G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002820
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 authors claims are wide applicability and practicality of USG when compared to other imaging modalities. The claims are pertinent but doccumented facts. USG is truly a very feasible modality in management of pleural disordres. However it has its limitations as well.


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

    No. the facts and figures are already established and no statistical data is given in this paper. It is more of a brief review of USG as a modality. No attempt of characterisation or number of patients given. No attempt towards comparitive analysis done.


  • 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?

    As such no results have been given. It is purely going through previously reported literature with no novel outcome as such.


  • 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?

    Np protocol is provided for a trail or a systematic study..


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

    No methodology or analysis 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?

    I think the paper lacks many things. Subjects, Inclusion/ExclusionN criteria, Methods and materials, Statistical Analysis etc.


  • 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:

    I think more relevant work should be sent for review to uplift the clinical material of the journal.

  • Competing interests:
    Non
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Prashant K Gupta,Kumkum Gupta,Amit N Dwivedi,Manish Jain.Potential Role Of ultrasound in anesthesia and intensive care. Anaesthesia:Essays and Researches;5(1);Jan-Jun 2011.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I do confirm. Relevant papers are published and more than 6 years of post graduate teaching experience in field of chest sonography.

  • How to cite:  Dwivedi A .The Role of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pleural Disorders [Review of the article 'The Role of Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pleural Disorders ' by Vyshka G].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002819
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse