Submited on: 14 Dec 2016 10:36:28 AM GMT
Published on: 15 Dec 2016 10:36:49 AM GMT
 

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

    Try to distinguish bacterial co-infection in adeno resp infection.


  • 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?

    ok


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

    to some extent...

    bacterial culture in all 54 patients 


  • 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?

    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?

    Blood culture report correlation.


  • 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?

    Good.


  • Other Comments:

    Both mg and mcg or microgram symbols are used creating confusion. In place of 0.5 incorrect use 0,5 . This is in all tables. perhaps due to non-familiarity with English grammer ndecimal system. Paper is about presence of bacterial infections in confirmed adenovirus infections. To confirm bacterial infection blood culture is required. However it is done in 17/54 patients only. How was 0.5 cutoff selected ? based on previous studies of other authors or empirically. 

  • 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:

    Teaching faculty in Pediatrics since 1984.

  • How to cite:  Gohil J R.Predictive value of procalcitonin in respiratory adenovirus infections in children with elevated C-reactive protein levels[Review of the article 'Predictive value of procalcitonin in respiratory adenovirus infections in children with elevated C-reactive protein levels ' by Kunze W].WebmedCentral 2016;7(12):WMCRW003354
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Procalcitonin in adenovirus infection
Posted by Dr. Paraschiva Chereches-Panta on 21 Dec 2016 08:32:54 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The study of relevance and signfficance of acute phase parameters in a viral infection in children

    The authors reffered mainly to procalcitonin in PCR confirmed ADV infection

    The main aspect is relevant for clinical practice and the therapy  with antibiotics in respiratory infections in pediatrics


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

    The exccesive use of antibiotics in respiratory infections in children is a constant  field of interest in general practice


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

    The references are selected and up-dated


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

    Yes

    I would suggest to complete the analyze with the concordance and/or correlation between procalcitonin and neutrophils; and  between procalcitonin and C reactive protein


  • 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 only aspect that I consider it could be added is the diagnosis in the studied cases


  • 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?

    statistical analyze of the data as mentioned above


  • 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 is relevant for the clinical practice


  • Other Comments:

    Interesting paper

    worth to be published

  • 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:

    I am senior in Paediatrics with a PhD in respiratory disorders since 2001

  • How to cite:  Chereches-Panta P .Procalcitonin in adenovirus infection[Review of the article 'Predictive value of procalcitonin in respiratory adenovirus infections in children with elevated C-reactive protein levels ' by Kunze W].WebmedCentral 2016;7(12):WMCRW003352
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse