Submited on: 25 Oct 2010 03:52:33 PM GMT
Published on: 25 Oct 2010 10:50:30 PM GMT
Posted by Dr. Jen-Jung Pan on 15 Dec 2011 09:04:34 PM GMT

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? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
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 study supports a filter role of liver against portal bacteremia as commonly seen in sepsis. The strength of this study is to provide direct sequential observations of liver histology after innoculation of bacteria into portal vein. Although providing a few possible mechanisms in their discussion, the authors did not provide direct evidence to support their hypothesis. Liver manifestions during sepsis can be multifactorial including but no limiting to direct injury from live bacteria and unstable hemodynamics. Cholestasis is often seen in sepsis, which was not observed in the current study.    

  • 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:

    As a hepatologist, I receive consultation on patients with sepsis and liver enzyme abnormalities. 

  • How to cite:  Pan J . [Review of the article 'Liver Injury By Experimental Portal Bacteremia: Histogenetic Recovery Study In The Rat ' by Botticelli A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001268
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse