-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This article is based on analyses of anatomic variations of arterial system of upper limb. It is important to know such variations not only for teaching purposes but also for surgical and radiological interventions.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The claims are novel
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
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?
No
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
The methodology is valid
-
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 authors should discuss the embriyonic basis of arterial variations of the upper limb. This will sound better for the work and provide a basis to understand such variations.
-
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?
Yes. The arterial variations are documented well together with a search of the literature.
-
Other Comments:
No
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Barut, Ç., Ö. Sevinç, H. Özden, A. Comert, A.F. Esmer, I. Tekdemir ve A. Elhan “Surgical anatomy and bifurcation patterns of the popliteal artery: an anatomical syudy”, Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci, 29, 338-343, (2009). Sevinc, O., Y. Arifoglu, C. Barut, M. Is ve M. Diramali, “Variation in the formation of the median nevre involving a communicating branch from the musculocutaneous nerve”, Case Rep Clin Pract Rev, 8, 143-146 (2007).
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
None - How to cite: Anonymous.A Series Of Study Of Anatomic Variation On Arterial[Review of the article 'A Series Of Study Of Anatomic Variation On Arterial System ' by Koirala S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002103
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This article aims to describe arterial variations at the axillary, arm, forearm, and palmar levels. Various types of variations and their clinical implications are also discussed.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
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?
No
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
-
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?
No
-
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?
Yes. It would be a great seminar for medical students and residents.
-
Other Comments:
This article is very significant because, as the article itself states, the normal and variant anatomy of the region should be well-known for accurate diagnosis, better treatment and the avoidance of iatrogenic injuries during intervention vascular procedures.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
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:
Clinical associate professor
- How to cite: Maloney W J.Anatomic Variations of the Arterial System[Review of the article 'A Series Of Study Of Anatomic Variation On Arterial System ' by Koirala S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001996
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
No claims just stating anatomical variations in Nepalese women, it is very important.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No not novel and was explored so many times before.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes, and no more evidence needed.
-
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?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
NA
-
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?
Joining pictures would give more effective effect.
-
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?
Good paper.
-
Other Comments:
NA
-
Competing interests:
None
-
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 consultant Obstetrics and Gynaecology and researcher
- How to cite: Othman M .Anatomical Series[Review of the article 'A Series Of Study Of Anatomic Variation On Arterial System ' by Koirala S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001990
Interesting enough. In my opinion, the findings are not major, but worthy of note
Not novel, but still a good study
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
It is quite adequate
Yes
None
Yes
No
None
I am a gross anatomy instructor with 5 years post-doctoral teaching experience in the field