Submited on: 03 Jun 2012 07:01:36 PM GMT
Published on: 04 Jun 2012 02:37:16 PM GMT
 
Adnexal Tumor of The Arm.
Posted by Dr. Constantino Ledesma-Montes on 02 Jul 2012 04:22:57 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    To present a rare case of Adnexal Tumor of The Arm and a review of the literature.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claims are not novel. there are several reviews of the literatura on this matter.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No. The review of the literature made by the authors is very poor.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No. The authors need to do a more complete review of the literature and make a good discussion of the results.


  • 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?

    Not applicable.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Not applicable.


  • 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?

    Not applicable.


  • 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?

    This paper is not outstanding.


  • Other Comments:

    This manuscript has several mistakes in spelling, the authors did not published the cinical picture of the lesion. The review of the literature is very poor. For this reason the discussion section is not good. I do not  recommend this article.

  • 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 an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist.

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .Adnexal Tumor of The Arm. [Review of the article 'Adnexal Tumor of The Arm: A Rare Case Report and Review of Literature ' by Errihani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002014
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Eccrine Spiradenoma is a type of adnexal tumor in which the diagnosis is essentially histological and the treatment of choice is radical surgery.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    no


  • 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?

    yes


  • 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?

    Some grammatical errors are present that could be easily fixed.


  • 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?

    no


  • Other Comments:

    Case reports are a useful way of communicating important medical information on rare and unusual diseases. With a good case report, it is possible to have other researchers perform meta-analysis studies. A good case report should include as much quantitative information as is reasonable, in addition to qualitative issues and a discussion of how the patient was treated. This case study of an adnexal tumor of the limb was good in that it did include histology slides, and it could be improved with the inclusion of additional numeric quantitative data.

  • 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:

    PhD in Behavioral Sciences and Biostatistics in addition to ABNM Board Certification in Family Medicine.

  • How to cite:  Heston T F.The Role of Case Studies in Advancing Medical Knowledge[Review of the article 'Adnexal Tumor of The Arm: A Rare Case Report and Review of Literature ' by Errihani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002013
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Adnexal Tumor of the Arm
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 12 Jun 2012 12:12:04 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This is a case report of a rare presentation of a rare tumor. Important to add to body of knowledge.


  • 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?

    Not applicable.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Not applicable.


  • 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?

    Not applicable.


  • 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?

    Not outstanding, no. A nice addition to the searchable literature though.


  • Other Comments:

    A very nice review of a rare tumor, but rife with syntax errors. Clean up these errors and a this will be a nice article. There could be a bit more explanation of the most common presentation of this tumor prior to the details of the index case described here.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    I am a Surgical Oncologist
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Adnexal Tumor of the Arm[Review of the article 'Adnexal Tumor of The Arm: A Rare Case Report and Review of Literature ' by Errihani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001910
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse