Submited on: 02 Mar 2013 05:59:25 AM GMT
Published on: 02 Mar 2013 08:29:01 AM GMT
 

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

    This is in the form of a mini-review that examines the procedural aspects of a DNA quantification technique. A critical weakness of the article is the lack of any supporting data that establishes the efficacy of the procedure.


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

    I have not seen another review for this topic before but the lack of supporting data regarding efficacy substantially weakens the strength of the article.


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

    There is a glaring lack of references, particularly in the introductory portion of the article. I believe the authors fail in establishing a properly referenced background to the topic.


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

    As mentioned above, there is no data provided.


  • 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?

    As mentioned above, there is no data provided.


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

    The level of detail for describing the procedure itself is adequate but the lack of data establishing its efficacy is a fatal flaw.


  • 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?

    As mentioned above, the lack of references and data establishing the efficacy of the procedure exhibit themselves as critical flaws.


  • 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. In many respects, this looks like the draft to the front end of a grant proposal. The lack of references and the lack of data prevent the authors from doing much more than describe a procedure.


  • Other Comments:

    The overall quality of the writing and the structure of the subsections is good but the poor content (lack of references and data) severely hampers this article from serious consideration as a properly written scientific work. Revision should be required.

  • 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:

    Cell biology PhD.

  • How to cite:  Fendos J .Falls Well Short of a Proper Methodological Review.[Review of the article 'Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance ' by Singh R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002604
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 review highlighted Hepatitis B virus as causative of a disease associated with high rate of morbidity and mortality. The authors claims the importance of Real Time PCR as the better choice method to detect and quantify viral infections caused by HBV. Particularlly, they argue in favor of a product developed and commercialized by the enterprise Roche.

     


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

    No. This paper is a review and do not bring any novelty.


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

    No. The literature should be better explored by the authors. Basic references are missing.


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

    Not applicable.


  • 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?

    No. This paper is a short review and the authors do not show new data.


  • Other Comments:

    The introduction needs to be revised.

    The information on the topics "Target Amplification Methods", "TaqMan Probe Molecular Chemistry" and "Real-Time PCR" are too basic and are not necessary for this review.

    The topic "Significance of HBV DNA Quantification" should be relocated.

  • 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:

    Molecular Biology

  • How to cite:  Toledo J S.Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance[Review of the article 'Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance ' by Singh R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002599
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Significance of HBV cuantification using Real-time PCR.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    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, because such new tools are especially relevant for patients at high risk for disease progression or acute exacerbation.


  • Other Comments:

    1. English should be checked by a native speaker.

    2. References should be updated 2011-2013.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Guadalupe García-Elorriaga, Leila Vera-Ramírez, Guillermo del Rey-Pineda, César González-Bonilla. -592 and -1082 interleukin-10 polymorphisms in pulmonary tuberculosis with type 2 diabetes. Asian Pac J Trop Med 2013; in press.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance[Review of the article 'Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance ' by Singh R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002561
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Hepatitis caused by Hepatitis B is having very high morbidity and mortality. The paper discusses the detection and quantitation of viral DNA.


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

    Though the claims are not novel, it is a short review on the quantitation of HBV DNA.


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

    This review is missing the basic reference for this review- Quantification of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) DNA with a TaqMan HBV Analyte-Specific Reagent following Sample Processing with the MagNA Pure LC Instrument


    Jeffrey J. Germer,1 Mohammed O. Qutub,3 Jayawant N. Mandrekar,2 P. Shawn Mitchell,1 and  Joseph D. C. Yao1,*


  • 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?

    This paper is not outstanding since it has not covered many previous works but information is worth to include in lectures and presenations.


  • Other Comments:

    Nil

  • 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:

    Experience in animal cell culture and virology

  • How to cite:  Wadegaonkar P A.Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance[Review of the article 'Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance ' by Singh R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002560
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Hepatitis B virus.
Posted by Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 02 Mar 2013 02:27:31 PM GMT

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

    The authors try to project another technique for (amplification) and quantification of HBV-DNA.


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

    No. A number of publications are available in this direction. In fact, if one were to open any virology journal, literally every issue describes at least one in-house technique for amplification and quantification of HBV-DNA.


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

    Literature survey is incomplete. The paper should try to compare the different techniques with specific reference to the country of origin of the authors. The authors for once cannot take excuse in the statement that they are pioneers in this direction.


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

    No results listed. The appended/included illustrations/comparative figures are not properly uploaded.


  • 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?

    The authors seem to have 'paraphrased' the content of the manual provided with COBAS Taqman.


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

    This seems to be a commercial kit applied to HBV quantification and as mentioned earlier the authors are not the first.


  • 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?

    Illustrations and figures need to be uploaded once again.


  • 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:

    1.  Let this journal make it a point in future that, in multi-author publications, as an end-note, the specific techincal contribution of each author be mentioned;

    2.  The authors seem to be concluding and concluding;

    3.  Looks like this article is a pre-draft of something larger that is to appear elsewhere.  In which case, lets' demand that Webmedcentral be given its due credit, at least in acknowledgements.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    1. Analytical Biochemistry, 2003; 314 (1) 142 – 143; 2. Tropical Gastroenterology, 2003; 24 (4) 193 – 195; 3. Intervirology, 2004; 47 (6) 374 – 376.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Poduri C D.Hepatitis B virus.[Review of the article 'Hepatitis B Virus DNA Quantification Using TaqMan Probe and its Significance ' by Singh R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(3):WMCRW002552
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse