Submited on: 15 Jul 2015 12:19:52 PM GMT
Published on: 16 Jul 2015 02:52:26 PM GMT
 

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

    The paper sought to estimate the prevalence of hypertension in a medically literate, young population in a South Asian country. Additionally, they wanted to study the risk factors of hypertension in this specific population. These are important study questions, considering the increasing prevalence of hypertension in South Asian countries, and the lack of good research on any of these problems. 


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

    The study does not seek to make novel claims - prevalence of hypertension and its risk factors have been studied extensively in western populations. However, the original aspect here is to study these in a specific south asian population. 


  • 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?

    This is a descriptive study, and therefore the results are descriptive in nature. However, they support the original claims in that there is a measure of prevalence of hypertension in this population, and risk factors for the same are identified.


  • 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


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

    The methodology is valid for the most part. The authors mention that the questionnaire is validated, but no description of the statistical analyses conducted to validate the questionnaire is provided. This is a caveat, as this could possibly hurt the reproducibility of the analyses. 


  • 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, the addition of a multivariable logistic regression model would have improved the results section. A logistic regression model prediciting hypertension would have helped identify the worst risk factors, controlling for all other predictors, and therefore pave the way for targeted interventions. Considering all data collected, this would not have been a difficult analysis to add.


  • 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 - the omission of a logistic regression model is glaring. However, it provides good insights on hypertension in a specific population. However, keeping in mind the specific population, the generalizability of the results is poor.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    .

  • How to cite:  Doshi P .Review of: The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study[Review of the article 'The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study ' by Sankaran R].WebmedCentral 2015;7(11):WMCRW003328
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 role of hypertensive risk factors in youth is thevery important claim of the article


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

    Yes


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

    - Cardiovascular risk profile of young can increase since childhood due to different causes. Please consider also the role of childhood obesity on hypertension in adulthood. Please consider and discuss the paper from Ciccone MM et al. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011 Dec;18(6):831-5.

    - Furthermore, the role of insulin resistance, diabetes, prediabetes and family history of diabetes should be better discussed in such a context. Please consider and discuss the papers from Miniello VL et al. Int J Cardiol. 2014 Jun 15;174(2):343-7 and Ciccone MM et al. J Diabetes Metab 2014;5:364. doi: 10.4172/2155-6156.1000364.


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

    - A multivariate regression analysis should be performed


  • 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 deviations


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

    - The use of a questionnaire is a limitation of this study and it should be discussed in a defined limitation section.


  • 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:

    See the comments above

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Cardiology and Angiology: An International Journal 3(4): 181-191, 2015, Article no.CA.2015.018

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I confirm..

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review of the article entitled: The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study[Review of the article 'The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study ' by Sankaran R].WebmedCentral 2015;6(9):WMCRW003240
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Authors have tried to determine the risk factors of hypertension among medical and dental students attending a medical college in Kathmandu. They conclude that the prevalence of hypertension and pre hypertension among the study respondents was lower than in general population in urban areas.

    Overall awareness strategies and intervention programmes for those with risk factors of hypertension or other chronic NCDs is advocated.


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

    Who validated the questionnaire? Is it tested?

    How the sample size was calculated? Is it convenient sampling?

    It is only with one college.


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

    To some extent..Could have added few more.


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

    Is there any correlation with paternal or maternal hypertension among the different study subjects?


  • 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?

    NA


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

    Above concerns need to be looked into.


  • 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?

    This study can be conducted on a larger sample size, in different colleges, different genders at different places with a neat collaboration to validate the results.


  • 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?

    With the above limitation, this can be a pilot study.


  • Other Comments:

    Thepathophysiological basis for the above results claimed need further explaination.

    More review of literature needed.

     

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Dutt RA, Kumar NSS, Ramaswamy C, Bhat MR, Murthy NHL. A Comparative study of Blood Pressure, Heart Rate Variability and Metabolic risk factors in Software professionals. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy & Pharmacology 2011;1(2):51-56. Dutt RA, Chandra S, Shivalli S,Padubidri JR, Bhat KS. Work related stress in middle aged white collar workers: Focus on cardiometabolic parameters. International Journal of basic and applied physiology 2014;3(1):331-36. Bhat MB, Shenoy JP, Dutt RA, Kumar NSS, Kalpana B, Bhat SK, Shet U. Influence of dietary habits on blood pressure in preadolescent boys of Coastal Karnataka. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy & Pharmacology 2013;3(1)9-13.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have published 30 articles in the field of hypertension, metabolic disorders.\\nAssociate editor and editorial member of 7 reputed journals.\\nReviewer of nearly 15 journals.

  • How to cite:  Dutt. R A .Review on - The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study[Review of the article 'The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study ' by Sankaran R].WebmedCentral 2015;6(9):WMCRW003238
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Studying the modifiable risk factors which can be assessed and avoided at an early stage in this age group. The study is quite significant as a preventive measure.


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

    Not novel. However still have impact and especially done by the same target group is encouraging


  • 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?

    The dietary component can be detailed and even the exercises can be classified to find benefit from a particular type of physical exercise.


  • 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


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

    For a preliminary study it is relevant


  • 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?

    Done on a larger population taking into account the details from students from other faculties too.


  • 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?

    This work can be extended further


  • Other Comments:

    Not applicable

  • 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:

    16 years

  • How to cite:  Srikumar S .The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study[Review of the article 'The risk factors for hypertension among medical and dental students at a private medical college: Findings from a cross-sectional study ' by Sankaran R].WebmedCentral 2015;6(7):WMCRW003231
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse