Submited on: 13 May 2012 06:15:37 PM GMT
Published on: 14 May 2012 12:19:38 PM GMT
 
Randomisation and blinidng in clinical trials
Posted by Dr. Abdul M Ruknudin on 28 May 2012 02:35:42 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? 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:

    No comments

  • 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:

    I am experienced in this field.

  • How to cite:  Ruknudin A M.Randomisation and blinidng in clinical trials[Review of the article 'Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials ' by Kent W].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001838
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials
Posted by Dr. Karim Hmadcha on 15 May 2012 05:52:57 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? No
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:

    In the review titled: “Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials" the author summarizes elegantly the significance of randomization and blinding to prevent bias and how to implement them so the quality and credibility of a trial and its conclusions can be evaluated with confidence. The manuscript is well written, documented and organized.

    I would definitely recommend the manuscript as a contribution to Webmedcentral.

  • Competing interests:
    None to declare
  • 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:

    Conducting clinical trials

  • How to cite:  Hmadcha K .Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials [Review of the article 'Randomisation and blinding in clinical trials ' by Kent W].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001811
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse