-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
Other Comments:
This manuscript lacks proper presentation especially the results section. It would be proper to reorganize this part of the paper. Mention of results as majority or most appears to be less scientific and rather illogical. mentioning the results as citation of para numbers of the table is inappropriate. Likewise there is no total in the tables and no statistical tests are shown. It appears to be illogical that all patients had some or other problem as appearing from the table. There is no mention of the data of multiparae in the patient records in material and methods section. overall the tables are too overemphasizing and not reflecting any trend as to what and where the obstetricians shoul focus when dealing with grandmultiparae patients. The conclusions are similarly too lengthy and not focussing on what the authors have studied. The keywords Orlu and Nigeria are improper and should be removed. The authors should avoid using more of scientific terms rather than literary words.
-
Competing interests:
no
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
written many articles on obstetrics and also authored many reviews.
- How to cite: Purohit G N.Pregnancy outcome in grandmultiparae at a university teaching hospital in southeastern nigeria[Review of the article 'Pregnancy Outcome in Grandmultiparae at a University Teaching Hospital in Southeastern Nigeria ' by Anozie U].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001187
Abstract: The aim does not reflect the title. Under patients and methods the word immediately should be replaced with `during the period under study`. The results do not show any comparison(Grandmultipara and Multipara).
Introduction: The spelling of foetus/foetal is fetus/fetal. Correct this in the manuscript.
Results: Line 11 ended abruptly. Complete the write up.
None
Yes
No
None
Same