Submited on: 03 Aug 2012 09:15:00 AM GMT
Published on: 03 Aug 2012 07:11:03 PM GMT
 

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

    The main claim of this paper is to compare different colonic drug delivery system to try and achieve the best possible system for sustained release of diclofenac sodium. This is important because the sustained release can improve patient compliance.


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

    As far as I can tell, this claim is novel. I was not able to find anything similar.


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

    I believe so, yes.


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

    Yes, the results provided do support the claim the author made


  • 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 author does not give enough detail to know whether or not he deviated from the protocol for the experiment


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

    Yes, the methodology is valid. The protocol seems reasonable.


  • 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?

    If the author were to use more delivery systems or prove that this system works with other drugs than DS


  • 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 think it is outstanding in its discipline. If there was more data with it, I believe this information would make a great presentation for my university.


  • Other Comments:

    I think this paper was overall pretty good. I think if the author was able to get some funding for the project, a lot more data could be collected and improve the strength of the claims.

  • 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:

    I am working on my Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences so I am familiar with this kind of data

  • How to cite:  Hull A .Review of Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets[Review of the article 'Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2017;8(10):WMCRW003369
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Colonic Sustained Release Tablets
Posted by Ms. Brooke Johnson on 11 Dec 2014 03:25:56 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The main claim of the paper is to compare different studies and effects on different coloinc polymers for the design and development of DS tablets. They attempt to develop a sustained release tablet of DS with different colonic polymers. 


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

    These claims are relatively novel, and I could not find a study that did an extensive comparative study such as this one. Most papers have only analyzed singular polymers, not multiple ones. 


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

    Yes, the claims are properly placed in the context of the literature. Although, I believe more claims could have been made. 


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

    Yes, the results support the claims. But I believe the authors could have made even more claims from their results.  


  • 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 seems to be no deviations from the protocol.


  • 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, the paper provides enough information and details to reproduce the experiment. Although, for the solubility studies, I couldn't find a list of the solvents used. This would be good information to have.


  • 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?

    I believe to make this paper stronger, more polymers could have been tested (e.g xanthan gum). This would make the paper more of a comparative study. I also believe the swelling behavior of the tablet should have been tested. Neither of these experiments would take long. 


  • 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 would not consider this paper outstanding in its discipline. The claims are interesting and provide good information, however, similar studies have been done, maybe just not as extensively as this one. This article’s strength is the amount of polymers tested, and being able to find this information in one article. There are similar papers in this field, however, that provide more detailed information on a singular polymer. 


  • Other Comments:

    There are a few spelling errors and quite a few words that shouldn't be capitalized. All in all, I believe this paper was a good comparative study that did what it set out to do. I think a few more polymers would have strengthened the paper, as well as more conclusive statements in the summary and conclusion section. Also, I am unsure as to why the Drug content and Hardness are starred in Table 2. Also, is the key from Figure 1 the same for Figure 2?

  • 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:

    Pharmaceutical Graduate Student

  • How to cite:  Johnson B .Colonic Sustained Release Tablets[Review of the article 'Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2017;5(12):WMCRW003165
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 03 Dec 2014 03:53:13 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The main claim is the comparison of different colonic polymers for drug the diclofenac sodium which applied for the colonic drug delivery system.

    Yes, it is important in this field and provides some basic but useful research information.


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

    Yes, at that moment.


  • 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?

    Yes, but It might be much better if they can provide the data with statistics. For example, in term  of the thickness (nm), herein I hope they can provide the standard deviation.


  • 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?

    I am not sure because some data did nor provide the standard deviation.


  • 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?

    1. The author should provide the data with SD.

    2. It is much better to make a comparison of more different polymers.

    3. It is much better to provide in vivo data.


  • 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:

    No more.

  • 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:  Anonymous.Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets[Review of the article 'Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2017;5(12):WMCRW003150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Main claim of the paper is colonic delivery and sustained release they are important part of research field they are benificial for delayed release and those drug having short half lives respectivly.


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

    Yes this claims are novel.


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

    Yes the claims are properly placed in the context of the previous literature.


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

    Yes the results are support the claims.


  • 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?

    Yes the methodology is valid and also the paper ofder enough details of its methodology that is experiments or its analysis could be reproduced.


  • 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 some more colonic polymer if author used then research will more comparitive.The main difficulty whould be the availibility of such rare polymer.


  • 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?

    It is a good paper for researcher. The two combined claims are makes it to outstanding.


  • Other Comments:

    It is good paper but some other comparitive study its make good to best.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    My ongoing project in this topics.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets[Review of the article 'Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2017;3(8):WMCRW002184
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The research paper may be published.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    7 Years of research in pharmacy.

  • How to cite:  Bhowmik M .Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets [Review of the article 'Comparative Studies on Effects of Different Colonic Polymers for Design and Development of Diclofenac Sodium Sustained Release Tablets ' by Behera S].WebmedCentral 2017;3(5):WMCRW001793
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse