Submited on: 06 Sep 2015 07:53:34 PM GMT
Published on: 08 Sep 2015 04:59:10 AM GMT
Study of Addiction and nutritional deficiencies in street children in Pune
Posted by Mr. Vito Maglio on 15 Nov 2016 02:14:01 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The main claims of this article are that the street children in Pune are malnourished and children that ranged from the ages of 6-18 are either addicted to tobacco or Gutka. They are important because it shows the reader that malnourished and drug addictive children exists and there are very little that is being done to help them. 

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

    This article is not novel and here are some examples on why it is not. 


    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Care for Homeless People. "Health Problems of Homeless People - Homelessness, Health, and Human Needs - NCBI Bookshelf." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 01 Jan. 1988. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

    "Child Malnutrition." Restless Beings: Voice the Voiceless. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2016

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

    Yes the claims are properly 

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

    The results support the claim. The author shows that about 40% of children at the ages of 6-18 are addicted to either tobacco or Gutka. It also shows that children from the ages of 1-5 are all malnourished. 

  • 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 no deviation from the method.

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

    The method is valid and offers enough evidence to reproduce the results. The only thing that was omitted from the results and discussion section was the questions the author asked in the interviewing stage.

  • 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?

    A more evenly distributed age group would improve the paper. The age group that the author used is mostly children from the ages of 1-5 (~60%). By using a more evenly distributed age group, the results for the children at the ages of 6-16 will have more evidentiary support. 

  • 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?

    I don’t think this lecture is outstanding, but I think it should be presented to the general public because this is an issue that has to be addressed. It should also include different location to test this hypothesis. 

  • Other Comments:


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


  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:


  • How to cite:  Maglio V .Study of Addiction and nutritional deficiencies in street children in Pune[Review of the article 'Study of Addictions and nutritional deficiencies in street children in Pune ' by Agarkhedkar S].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003312
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse