Submited on: 03 Nov 2015 08:49:53 AM GMT
Published on: 04 Nov 2015 11:44:29 AM GMT
A Review of
Posted by Ms. Erin Spencer on 20 Nov 2016 12:29:44 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The paper claims that there is an abundance of supporting evidence and studies, cited and described to some extent within the article, that the plants Rhus coriaria and Echium amoenum contain compounds that have been used for a wide variety of traditional medicine applications. Rhus coriaria L. is described as being used for cuisine, as a tanning agent, in wound healing, fever reduction, and for intestinal discomfort relief. Echium amoenum L. may have applications for anti-inflammatory purposes, antibacterial purposes, and a possible protection against cancer.  The authors claim these plants (and possibly many others) may have neuroprotective properties and antioxidants that could have a lot of potential and could be useful as a topic for future studies. 

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

    These claims are not necessarily novel since the article is essentially a synthesized summary of previous research completed with these plants. The authors do a good job of explaining why it would be important to delve further into research of herbal remedies and medicines. For example, the article directs and references to studies and papers such as: Traditional medicine in Turkey. Folk medicine in northeast Anatolia. ; The Chalcone Butein from Rhus verniciflua Shows Antifibrogenic Activity. ; Main phenolic compound of petals of Echium amoenum Fisch. and CA Mey., a famous medicinal plant of Iran.

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

    It appears that claims of their uses traditionally and what could be further researched into is properly placed. 

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

    It appears that multiple studies cited appear to be relevant, many of which are unable to be directly accessed for reading purposes online. The authors do convince readers of the need for more studies of herbal medicine remedies so that these remedies and their uses could become more attractive to medical professionals. 

  • 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 

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

    No actual methodology used here 

  • 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?

    It is possible that a more in-depth explanation of some or any of the methodology of the studies or papers referred to would help the reader to understand or be more convinced of the claims. Just stating what was supposedly found or shown may not do a superb job of convincing the reader of their accuracy or statistical significance. Many of the readers may not be entirely convinced that folk medicine has any tangible benefit so providing an explanation of any good results obtained in cited studies may be much more convincing to the reader. If more work was put into showing some results of these studies I believe the paper's quality and ability to convince readers of claims made would be greatly improved.

  • 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 paper would be much more outstanding if any of the claims had specific results or evidence from studies cited to help the reader better understand how these plants and their properties may be applied to further research. However, it is a fairly good review of the items that should be considered with these plants and in regards to other folk or herbal medicines that may be in use in many parts of the world. It is convincing to consider what people in different areas have traditionally used and that these remedies have been passed on for centuries. It does make one believe that these plants and remedies must have some value deeply rooted in the culture.

  • 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:

    I am a chemical engineering and pharmaceutical sciences student

  • How to cite:  Spencer E .A Review of [Review of the article 'Pharmacological Actions and Potential Neuroprotective Effects of Rhus coriaria L. and Echium amoenum L.: A Brief Review ' by Abdul Majid A].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003321
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse