Submited on: 28 Oct 2013 09:13:05 AM GMT
Published on: 29 Oct 2013 04:49:07 AM GMT
 
Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 11 Dec 2013 08:31:59 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

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

    They describe their experience in the role of US in the diagnosis of the gallstones with literature.


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

    This is not original but they explain US in the diagnosis of the gallstones in Tirana.


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

    Partially it is placed.


  • 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?

    Methods and results can be changed with more detail.


  • 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?

    No


  • 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:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Fellow of Radiology

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones[Review of the article 'Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones ' by Beqiri A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(12):WMCRW002903
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Radiologist Review
Posted by Dr. Sandeep G Jakhere on 21 Nov 2013 03:06:11 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The study is quite irrelevant in these times as the role of ultrasound for studying gallstones has been established for quite some time now.


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

    The claims are not novel.


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

    No, they are not.


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

    The results are obsolete as no data has been evaluated substantially.


  • 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?

    The materials and methods section is grossly in adequate .


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

    No. The methodology is obsolete.


  • 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 would suggest rewriting this paper more as a educational tool for radiology residents rather than a research paper.


  • 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?

    Definitely not.


  • Other Comments:

    The article has too many gramatical flaws which need correction.

  • 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:

    I am currently working as a Assistant Professor in a Tertiary care Hospital attached to a Medical College.

  • How to cite:  Jakhere S G.Radiologist Review[Review of the article 'Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones ' by Beqiri A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(11):WMCRW002892
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 12 Nov 2013 04:09:12 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Dspite of reading the article many times, still it is not clear what novel methods/approaches the author is trying to explain.


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

    No. This is a descriptive study and does not carry any significant research results


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

    Previous leteratures are just listed in the reference section, None of them are cited in the paper and their work, disadvantes with their approach is not explained anywhere


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

    Statistics is missing. The technical details of Ultrasound modality details is missing w.r.t the patient data used.


  • 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?

    Lack of explanation


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

    No enough details. Since it is a descriptive research, author could have tried to explain better with the existing details what they achieved from different patients. What is the size of the population considered? what is the data collection technique followed? what is the data classification method used? What is the basis for deciding sensititvity as 90-95% ( what is the ground truth considered)?


  • 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?

    For better understanding, detailed explanation with the statistics is important. And this major part is missing.

    Paper can be rereviewed if author re submits with the flaws mentioned in this reviewer's comments


  • 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. This point can be answered if the paper is re submitted with adequate details


  • Other Comments:

    Content has slight grammatical mistakes. I recommend for resubmit with the comments incorporated.

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

    None

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    None

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones[Review of the article 'Role of Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of the gallstones ' by Beqiri A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(11):WMCRW002889
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse