Submited on: 28 Aug 2017 05:24:15 PM GMT
Published on: 31 Aug 2017 07:32:23 AM GMT
Review on the Intraosseous cavernous hemangioma: A rare nasal tumour
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 03 Nov 2017 12:20:13 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The main objective of this article is to present a case report of an intraosseous cavernous hemangioma arising from intranasal which is really rare. This is important because rare diseases are an important public-health issue and a challenge for the medical community. Of the more than 7000 rare diseases, only approximately 350 have treatments that are approved by the FDA. More importantly, patients who have a rare disease face difficulty in every step of their medical care, including diagnosis, treatment, and preserving the quality of life. Sometimes, patients go years without receiving the correct diagnosis for their condition. Once they finally have an answer, often no treatment is available for their condition.Therefore, I got interested in this paper because the authors reported a rare cancer case and difficult to diagnose.

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

    The author makes no claim that this 51 years old woman is the first case report of this kind. He acknowledges that there are other such case reports, though few. I believe that this report is not a claim, but a factual statement.

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

    This is only a single case report. Other cases already reported in the literature and having diagnostic problem due to rare nature of the disease.

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

    The authors conclude that the final diagnosis for this rare cancer is histological and endoscopic surgery gives good functional results. They also mentioned complete surgical excision results in no signs of recurrence. In this case, nasal endoscopy even after one year of surgery showed no sign of tumor relapse. Whereas their statement is definitely correct, the authors do not provide proof for their conclusion. There is no figure or image that proves their statement. Furthermore, the size of the study case is very small. Building up and withdrawing conclusions based on one case is of no statistical value and should be validated by performing the study on a larger population and preferably longitudinally.

  • 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 protocol, but rather a case study with some literature review. As it is single case report it is not applicable.

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

    This is not a research study to warrant experiments. Therefore, I believe the value of the paper lies not so much within the case it reports but within the kind of literature review in the discussion section that has been done.

  • 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?

    the study can be done with a larger size of, and then the paper can be more reliable and complete if supported by the figures showing the results. However, it has to be considered the study is based on a very rare case and for sure it cannot be easy to find such more subjects with same conditions.

  • 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 approach is standard whereas the case is a rare type of cancer. I am not a specialist in this area, but I would say it could be presented in a seminar or conference to bring to people’s attention to an uncommon case.

  • Other Comments:

    Since I had no information about this rare disease, the topic seemed very interesting. It is important to understand the presence of such rare diseases, we do come across such cases now and then, and should not miss the diagnosis. However, I would suggest the authors re-write the abstract, the current one is in my opinion too brief and without any specific reasoning to report this case. The other weakness is the short introduction, which doesn’t seem a really good introductory part for a reader. The discussion is sufficiently well written and sounds relevant and evidence-based. Overall, the case report is worthwhile reporting and helps to understand of this rare entity.

  • 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 Ph.D. student in pharmaceutical science, and my research topic is about infectious diseases.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review on the Intraosseous cavernous hemangioma: A rare nasal tumour[Review of the article 'Intraosseous cavernous hemangioma: A rare nasal tumour ' by Oliveira N].WebmedCentral 2017;8(11):WMCRW003390
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse