Submited on: 02 Apr 2016 03:15:13 PM GMT
Published on: 04 Apr 2016 08:04:15 AM GMT
 
Review of Minimizing Oxidative Stress
Posted by Ms. Ava Vargason on 21 Nov 2016 08:16:16 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    Claims that creating a negative charge throughout the body minimizes ROS and potentially disease states caused by oxidative stress


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

    These claims are placed in the context of previous literature that suggests grounding the human body can reduce oxidative stress, so not entirely. No previous studies of this kind appear to have been done with a negative charge throughout the human body.


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

    These claims are placed in the context of two previous articles, but there may be more literature that discusses grounding the human body that the article missed.


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

    This paper is a summary of an individual creating a negative static potential throughout their own body, so does not have a complete study to test results. However, their own anecdotal results demonstrated a reduction in pain associated with arthritis. 


  • 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?

    There is only one subject tested in this paper, and therefore there are no deviations. 


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

    This methodology is not valid for a full trial. 


  • 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 - an investigation of potentially harmful effects of negative potentials through the human body on the antioxidant/ROS balance and theoretical background on the mechanism of ROS reduction from negative potentials.


  • 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 would need to be investigated for the mechanism of action for reducing ROS, potential side effects, and a larger trial before this would be an outstanding paper. 


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

  • 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:  Vargason A .Review of Minimizing Oxidative Stress[Review of the article 'Minimizing Oxidative Stress ' by Ocone L].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003343
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Minimizing Oxidative Stress
Posted by Dr. Boguslaw Lipiinski on 19 Apr 2016 08:36:13 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

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

    It claimed that the negative static potentials inhibit oxidative stress.


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

    Not quite so, because it is knwon that connecting the human body to the ground, as a source of negative charges, has health beneficial effects.


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

    Just about


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

    There is nor experimental result


  • 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?

    N/A


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

    THere is no methodology provided


  • 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?

    Much work is needed


  • 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?

    N/A


  • Other Comments:

    It is potentially important paper but need more work to support its claims

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

    In the Journal of Bioelectricity

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I was the President of the International Society for Bioelectricity

  • How to cite:  Lipiinski B .Minimizing Oxidative Stress[Review of the article 'Minimizing Oxidative Stress ' by Ocone L].WebmedCentral 2016;7(4):WMCRW003285
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Minimizing Oxidative Stress
Posted by Dr. Oluyomi S Adeyemi on 18 Apr 2016 07:30:27 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

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

    Negative static potentials protect against oxidative stress


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

    Claims are not novel. Numerous indictaions in the literatures have demonstrated that electric charges play key role in oxidation.


  • 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?

    1. The results are not presented as measurable end-points rather these were premised on the observation (feelings) by the author.

     

    2. The study could have been designed to include measurable end-points since the disease condition is a result of biochemical reaction.

     


  • 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?

    N/A


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

    No, methodology lacks sufficient details to permit reproduction of experiment.

    1. Author did not state if he was taking medications along with the use of the wearable charging device.

     

    2. Duration of treatment was not mentioned, e.g., several months is not definitive...

     

    3. Also, it is important to mention if there were other factors included in the course of study.


  • 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?

    N/A


  • 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?

    N/A


  • Other Comments:

    1. The findings throw up more questions than answers.

    2. I suggest the article is restructured and resubmit as Opinion or Letter to Editor. It lacks adequate scientific facts to substantiate claim. More so the study design and data presentation do not fit for full article.

    3. The experimental design was not adequate to permit the exploration of the hypothesis

  • 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:

    N/A

  • How to cite:  Adeyemi O S.Minimizing Oxidative Stress[Review of the article 'Minimizing Oxidative Stress ' by Ocone L].WebmedCentral 2016;7(4):WMCRW003284
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse