Submited on: 05 May 2014 04:04:00 PM GMT
Published on: 06 May 2014 11:16:52 AM GMT
 
Sound article
Posted by Dr. Nassir A Azimi on 04 Mar 2017 06:20:48 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    I feel that the issue of adherence to guidlines need additional attention.


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

    No but we still need to see teh degree of penetration of guidelines and adherence around the globle.


  • 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?

    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?

    Yes


  • 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?

    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?

    Yes.


  • Other Comments:

    Best shared with colleagues.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    I do

  • How to cite:  Azimi N A.Sound article[Review of the article 'Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications. ' by Aggarwal S].WebmedCentral 2014;8(3):WMCRW003359
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Adherence to heart failure medications is lower in developing countries than in developed countries for various reasons.


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

    Claims are novel, but the authors could have emphasized more on the importance of the claims by expanding the consequences of nonadherence to heart failure medications.


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

    It is properly placed. Information presented in the introduction is relevant to the purpose of the study, but the discussion is somewhat lacking.


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

    Results support the claims, but there are flaws with methodology and interpretation of the results.


  • 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. This study is a retrospective chart review study.


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

    The overall methodology is valid for achieving the objective and allows potential replication of the study results. However, since the study defined adherence as prescription of study medications either in an inpatient or an outpatient setting, it is likely that actual adherence was overestimated because not all inpatient administration of medications was followed by continued use of the medication outside the hospital. Other than this, the study design is reasonable for data collection on utilization of heart failure therapies.


  • 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?

    Presentation of study results should be supplemented by the use of tables or figures.

    Regarding the interpretation of the results, the authors didn’t consider other reasons for failure to prescribe the recommended drug therapies, including patient intolerance, comorbidities, concomitant medications, etc. This weakens the discussion of the study results.

    The discussion of the results should have talked about changes in some interpretation of the data based on the new guideline versus the old guideline.


  • 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 methodology and result interpretation need to be improved. See comments in the previous sections.


  • Other Comments:

    Writing style of the paper needs improvement.

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

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a registered pharmacist with experience in medication therapy management.

  • How to cite:  Tang F .Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications [Review of the article 'Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications. ' by Aggarwal S].WebmedCentral 2014;7(11):WMCRW003338
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 adherence to therapy in heart failure is a fundamental matter to be explored all over the world.


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

    The claims are novel but the writing style is poor.


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

    Please cite and discuss the following paper in order to improve discussion: “Ciccone MM et al. Clinical correlates of endothelial function in chronic heart failure. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Jun;100(6):515-21”.


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

    - The authors did not consider the evaluation of physical activity and dietary habits. Please discuss such a point.

    - No multivariate analysis has been provided.

    - No tables have been provided nor figures. Please provide.

    - The dosages of the drugs should be provided in order to evaluate if the maximum tolerable doses had been achieved.


  • 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 provided.


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

    No because multivariate regression analysis should be performed.


  • 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


  • 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?

    Yes


  • Other Comments:

    Dear Editor,

    We have read through the manuscript and we think that the manuscript seems to show important and major lacking news:

    - An English revision should be provided in order to re-evaluate the text.

    - The authors did not consider the evaluation of physical activity and dietary habits. Please discuss such a point.

    - No multivariate analysis has been provided.

    - No tables have been provided nor figures. Please provide.

    - The dosages of the drugs should be provided in order to evaluate if the maximum tolerable doses had been achieved.

    - Please cite and discuss the following paper in order to improve discussion: “Ciccone MM et al. Clinical correlates of endothelial function in chronic heart failure. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Jun;100(6):515-21”.

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

    Ciccone MM et al. Clinical correlates of endothelial function in chronic heart failure. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Jun;100(6):515-21”

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I confirm my experience in heart failure therapy and adherence

  • How to cite:  Ciccone M M.Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications[Review of the article 'Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications. ' by Aggarwal S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(6):WMCRW003077
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 tried to explain the relationship between heart failure and the adherence to therapy.


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

    In the Indian context, the claims are novel.


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

    Yes, they are placed in the context of the previous literature.


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

    - The authors did not consider the evaluation of physical activity and dietary habits. Please discuss such a point.
    - No multivariate analysis has been provided.
    - No tables have been provided nor figures. Please provide.
    - The dosages of the drugs should be provided in order to evaluate if the maximum tolerable doses had been achieved.


  • 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 protocol number is not provided and this is not a randomized controlled trial.


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

    - The authors did not consider the evaluation of physical activity and dietary habits. Please discuss such a point.
    - No multivariate analysis has been provided.
    - No tables have been provided nor figures. Please provide.
    - The dosages of the drugs should be provided in order to evaluate if the maximum tolerable doses had been achieved.


  • 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?

    - An English revision should be provided in order to re-evaluate the text.
    - The authors did not consider the evaluation of physical activity and dietary habits. Please discuss such a point.
    - No multivariate analysis has been provided.
    - No tables have been provided nor figures. Please provide.
    - The dosages of the drugs should be provided in order to evaluate if the maximum tolerable doses had been achieved.
    - Please cite and discuss the following paper in order to improve discussion: “Ciccone MM et al. Clinical correlates of endothelial function in chronic heart failure. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Jun;100(6):515-21”.


  • 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?

    Yes, it could be outstanding after the revisions.


  • Other Comments:

    I have no other comments about this paper.

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

    Ciccone MM et al. Clinical correlates of endothelial function in chronic heart failure. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Jun;100(6):515-21 Ciccone MM et al. The renal arterial resistance index: a marker of renal function with an independent and incremental role in predicting heart failure progression. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 Feb;16(2):210-6. Triggiani V et al. Incidence and prevalence of hypothyroidism in patients affected by chronic heart failure: role of amiodarone. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2012 Mar;12(1):86-94. Metra M, et al. Cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities in patients with chronic heart failure. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2011 Feb;12(2):76-84.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes I have suitable experience and knowledge to review this article.

  • How to cite:  Ciccone M M.Manuscript review: Central Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications[Review of the article 'Rate of Heart failure guideline adherence in a tertiary care center in India after accounting for the therapeutic contraindications. ' by Aggarwal S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003044
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse