Home » Reviews
Recurrent Pregnancy of Down Syndrome
By Prof. Tae-Hee Kim , Dr. Junsik Park , Prof. Hae-Hyeog Lee , Ms. Sun-Hee Kim , Mr. Seung-Rae Yeom , Ms. Arum Lee , Ms. Yesol Kim
Submited on: 05 Apr 2014 08:03:32 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Apr 2014 03:46:58 PM GMT
 
Recurrence of Down Syndrome-Reviewer Comment
Posted by Prof. Pralhad Kushtagi on 10 May 2014 09:17:10 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

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

    No claims; It is a case report.

    The abstract hints at following possible claims for presenting the case report, but no such claims are made.

    1. Incidence of trisomy 21 increases with maternal age

    2. Younger the woman higher chance of recurrence in young women

    3. Aberrant maternal chromosome 21 recombination will be present


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

    It is a case report. No attempt is made show the relevance of case to the statements made above.


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

    No attempt is made to explain or reiterate some of case related facts with the available knowledge in the literature.


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

    Not applicable.


  • 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. It is case report


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

    Not applicable. It is a case report.


  • 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 suggestions. It is a case report.


  • 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:

    1. The write-up is sketchy; there is no continuity of thought; the English language of the manuscript needs linguists help.
    2. Age of the partners is not mentioned in the case details, but it surfaces in the last paragraph of discussion.
    3. The discussion begins with hypothesis about the mechanism for Down.
    4. The attempt made to relate the explanation in context of the reported case is weak. It could be placed  effectively.
    5. Clarification of the statements ‘The patient belonged to the trisomy 21. ETBR karyotype results were 46, XX and 46, XY which were the normal karyotype of both sex.’ is required. otherwise it is confusing.

  • 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:

    A Consultant and a Faculty in a Medical College Hospital.

  • How to cite:  Kushtagi P .Recurrence of Down Syndrome-Reviewer Comment[Review of the article 'Recurrent Pregnancy of Down Syndrome ' by Kim Y].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003045
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.