-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This paper reported a study on comparison of the anthropometric parameters in newborn infants from Gestational Diabetic (DM) women and Diabetes Mellitus (DM) women.
The significance of this research is that it disclosed the correlation of genetic influence of diabetes on newborn baby. As we tried hard on uncover the disease of diabetes and its effective treatment, though it is still the top diseases among populations in the current society. To avoid inborn diabetes, thus we urgently want to know how the diabetes mothers affect the baby's occurrence of diabetes.
This study did good exploration on the field. The discovery that DM mother’s IBM tended to show correlation to baby's IP while babies of DM mother did not. And infant IP of DM mothers is strongly and significantly correlated to the head perimeter, thorax and abdomen perimeters of the infant, whereas among babies of DG mothers such correlation is not noticed.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
It is novel. Thought there are some papers on molecular level of serum of DM womaen and GM women, they didnot proposed the similar discovery to 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?
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?
The research applied a retrospective data analysis, so it could not perfectly match the subjects in each group. However, the most characters of two groups are not significant difference except in age.
-
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?
If there will be a follow-up research on this topic, the relationship of health woman's IBM and their babies' PI may be an experiment to provide and compare with the DM women and GM women.
-
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 provides new information on the diabetes topic, so it is outstanding.
-
Other Comments:
No
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Yan Y. et al. The role of cardiolipin remodeling in mitochondria dysfunction and human diseases. J. Mol. Biol. Res. 2012, 2(2):1-11. Yan Y. et al. Resistance of alcat1 null mice to high fat diet induced obesity and impaired glucose tolerance. Int.J. Bio. 2011, 3(2):11-22.
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
I have suitable experience and knowledge to review this article
- How to cite: Yan Y .review on the research of Anthropometric Parameters in Infants of Gestational Diabetic Women and Diabetic Mellitus Women in Albania [Review of the article 'Anthropometric Parameters in Infants of Gestational Diabetic Women and Diabetic Mellitus Women in Albania ' by Qamirami S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(7):WMCRW003084
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
The authors' aim in this original study was to compare the anthropometric parameters in newborn infants from Gestational Diabetic (GDM) women and Diabetes Mellitus (DM). It is a good study.
Yes,
Yes,
No problem.
The methodology is valid.
No problem.
It is a good study.
It is a good study. But there are some suggestions to improve the paper. I state some suggestions as follows in "http://www.webmedcentral.com/wmcpdf/Article_WMC004654.pdf";
1. Page 3: not ‘‘The other differences are insignificant.(Tab.1)’’, ‘‘The other differences are insignificant (Tab.1).’’
2. Page 3: not ‘‘Average values for all newborn anthropometric parameters are given in (Tab 2)’’, ‘‘Average values for all newborn anthropometric parameters are given in (Tab 2).’’
3. Page 3: not ‘‘The differences of the above parameters among babies delivered from DM and DG mothers are statistically
insignificant. (Tab 2)’’, ‘‘The differences of the above parameters among babies delivered from DM and DG mothers are statistically insignificant (Tab 2).’’
4. Page 3: not ‘‘Even correlations to infant sex result insignificant(Tab.4)’’, ‘‘Even correlations to infant sex result insignificant (Tab.4).’’
5. Page 3: not ‘‘Some international studies410,1213,, recommend screening of pregnant women older than 29 years old as well as those presenting risk factors.’’
, ‘‘Some international studies 4,10,12,13 recommend screening of pregnant women older than 29 years old as well as those presenting risk factors.’’
6. Page 3: not ‘‘From the study, there resulted macrosomic infants3,11, from diabetic women and 30(sex) from GD women 47(sex).’’
, ‘‘From the study, there resulted macrosomic infants 3,11 from diabetic women and 30 (sex) from GD women 47 (sex).’’
None
Yes
No
None
Associate Professor Cenk Kilic, Department of Anatomy, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Etlik, Ankara, Turkey