Home » Reviews
Caeco-colic Intussusception Simulating an Appendicular Mass
By Dr. Matthew O Adelekan
Submited on: 30 Mar 2012 12:52:23 PM GMT
Published on: 31 Mar 2012 08:26:50 AM GMT
 
Informative and well written case report
Posted by Mr. Deep Malde on 23 Apr 2012 01:02:50 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? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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:

    Well written, to the point and informative case report of a commonly encountered pathology with specific relevance to adults. Agree with the neccessity to carry out CT scans on all right iliac fossae masses in adults to avoid missing underlying malignant pathology.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have 10 years expererience in general and emergency surgery, dealing with abdominal masses and managing the various presentations of appendicular pathology.

  • How to cite:  Malde D .Informative and well written case report[Review of the article 'Caeco-colic Intussusception Simulating an Appendicular Mass ' by Adelekan M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001717
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Very interesting and well written case
Posted by Prof. Pietro G Calo on 04 Apr 2012 02:39:52 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? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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:

    A very interesting case, very well written but no so original

  • 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:

    Good

  • How to cite:  Calo P G.Very interesting and well written case[Review of the article 'Caeco-colic Intussusception Simulating an Appendicular Mass ' by Adelekan M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001643
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A well written article with good figures
Posted by Mr. Feng Yih Chai on 01 Apr 2012 01:38:40 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? No
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? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    A more systematic and consistent referencing style is preferred. The underlined segment of the references are in different format. I think it can be improved. 

     

    1. Nitecki S, Assalia A, Scheim M. Contemporary management of the appendicular mass. Br J Surg 1993;80:18-20
    2. Deakin DE, Ahmed I. Interval appendicectomy after resolution of adult inflammatory appendix mass- is it necessary? The Surgeon: clinical review  Feb2007; Vol5 No1
    3. Azar T, Berger DL. Adult intussusception. Annals of surgery 1997 Aug; 226 (2):134-138
    4.Tan KY, Tan SM, Tan AG, Chen CY, Chng HC, Hor MN. Adult intussusception . ANZ J Surg. 2003 Dec; 73 (12): 1044-7

  • 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:

    Managed similiar cases before.

  • How to cite:  Chai F .A well written article with good figures[Review of the article 'Caeco-colic Intussusception Simulating an Appendicular Mass ' by Adelekan M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001639
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.