Submited on: 29 Oct 2013 11:30:57 AM GMT
Published on: 30 Oct 2013 04:33:08 AM GMT

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

    There are no claims as such, as this is a case study. It is important to publish this case study, as the tumor is very rare.

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


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

    A more comprehensive overview of the literature on the topic could be useful.

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


  • 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?


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

    Methodology is valid

  • 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?

    More detail regarding several aspects would be helpful, all of which should already be available in some sort:

    1. Images of the immunohistochemical stainings would be important for those readers who would like to appreciate the micromorphological structures themselves.
    2. More laboratory parameters, such as testosterone and DHEA as well as other tumor markers (if not done, please say so) would be good to list to allow the reader to get a better overall picture of the patient.
    3. A better description regarding the event that lead to death would be helpful  
    4. Arrows in the CT images should be provided to guide the reader to the structures of interest.

  • 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?

    I am not sure the terminology "oustanding" is applicable here. As I mentioned, the tumor is a rare entity, and the publication of case reports should be encouraged by publishing this case.

  • Other Comments:

    This report would benefit from a rigorous review of punctuation and English language. For example, very often sentences do not end with a colon, one sentences does not begin with a capitalized word, the last para of the discussion contains the word "good" twice. Also, "positif anticorps" is not proper English.

    In the title, I would suggest to either capitalize both Sertoli and Leydig or not, but not one word capitalized and the other not.

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Over 10 years of working in oncology in various functions (clinician, basic researcher and pharmaceutical physician responsible for oncology trial design and medical monitoring). \\nMD/PhD thesis on signal transduction in Leydig cells.

  • How to cite:  Wurthner J U. A case of advanced stage and poorly differentiated Sertoli-leydig cell tumor of the ovary[Review of the article 'A case of advanced stage and poorly differentiated Sertoli-leydig cell tumor of the ovary ' by Errihani H].WebmedCentral 2013;4(11):WMCRW002887
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse