Submited on: 15 Mar 2011 11:03:43 PM GMT
Published on: 16 Mar 2011 10:23:57 PM GMT
 

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

    This is a theoretical description of tumor perfusion enhancement method, Postocclusive Reactive Hyperemia (PORH).  An important theoretical work from angiogenesis perspective. How did author approach reference 48, Cohnheim J. Untersuchungen ueber die embolische Processe. Berlin, 1872. My research shows that:
    1. Julius Cohnheim (1839-1884) experimental pathologist. JAMA. 1968 Nov. 11;206(7):1561-2. PubMed PMID: 4879583.


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

    Application to the field of cancer with the sub group of angiogenesis is novel. The idea of PORH and its application to the clinic is not novel. Some examples are:
    1. de Mul FF, Blaauw J, Smit RJ, Rakhorst G, Aarnoudse JG. Time development models for perfusion provocations studied with laser-Doppler flowmetry, applied to iontophoresis and PORH. Microcirculation. 2009 Oct;16(7):559-71. Epub 2009 Jun. PubMed PMID: 19488922.
    2. Jarm T, Kragelj R, Liebert A, Lukasiewitz P, Erjavec T, Preseren-Strukelj M,Maniewski R, Poredos P, Miklavcic D. Postocclusive reactive hyperemia in healthy volunteers and patients with peripheral vascular disease measured by three noninvasive methods. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2003;530:661-9. PubMed PMID: 14562764
    3. Matsubara J, Narumi J, Nagasue M, Sakamoto S, Yuasa K, Shimizu T.
    Postocclusive Reactive Hyperemia During Vascular Reconstruction. Int J Angiol.1998 May;7(3):222-7. PubMed PMID: 9585455


  • 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?

    This is a theoretical paper.


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

    This is a theoretical paper.


  • 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?

    This is a very good theoretical paper and it will be nice to carry this idea to animal studies.


  • 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 is a very good theoretical paper and it will be nice to carry this idea to animal studies.


  • Other Comments:

    none

  • 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 a cancer researcher over a decade, and I have an interest on angiogenesis.

  • How to cite:  Guzey M .How could a basic knowledge of vascular physiology provide a new tool for tumor oxygen-induced radiosensitization-post occlusive hyperemia concept for synchronized radiotheraphy.[Review of the article 'How Could a Basic Knowledge of Vascular Physiology Provide a New Tool for Tumor Oxygen-Induced Radiosensitization- Postocclusive Reactive Hyperemia Concept for Synchronized Radiotherapy ' by Reyal J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002104
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    This is my second review of the same paper. I am pleased to see that the necessary changes are completed.


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

    please see the previous revision


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

    please see the previous revision


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

    please see the previous revision


  • 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?

    please see the previous revision


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

    please see the previous revision


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • 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:

    Angiogenesis and cancer research

  • How to cite:  Guzey M .Tumor Oxygen-Induced Radiosensitization-PRHC for Synchronized Radiotherapy.[Review of the article 'How Could a Basic Knowledge of Vascular Physiology Provide a New Tool for Tumor Oxygen-Induced Radiosensitization- Postocclusive Reactive Hyperemia Concept for Synchronized Radiotherapy ' by Reyal J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002377
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse