Submited on: 30 Mar 2013 08:03:17 PM GMT
Published on: 01 Apr 2013 06:09:44 AM GMT
 

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

    Author want to establish effect of smoking on serum Lecithin: Cholesterol activity.Smoking causes dyslipidemia and health problems.The study of LCAT activity alone can't hold any importance as other cases like(1) Apo A-1/Apo C3/Apo A 4 deficiency (2)Apo A 1 deficiency (3)Combined Apo A1/Apo C3 deficiency(4)Familial dyslipidemia(5)Tangier disease(6)Familial Hyper Cholesterolemia(7)Polygenic familial HyperCholesterolemia and(8)Hypertriglyceridemia etc  are with low or absent LCAT levels- must be excluded carefully.


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

    No. Smoking cause dyslipidemia,LCAT parameter must be studied with the other parameters of dyslipidemia also like lipid profile.Author completely ignored to mention the tables and parameters connected with coincident lipid abnormalities.


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

    No complete justification is done to the title.Author ignored that why the previous literature placed all the lipid parameters along with the LCAT study.Author informed about lipid profile but no result or table is published with reference to that.


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

    Results are not complete. Other dyslipidemia parameters are mandatary  and should be mentioned along with LCAT activity.


  • 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 work is incomplete.Deviations are quite possible.Author may not be in a state to explain the deviations.


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

    Methodology don't hold any validity, due to inadequate Parameters.Analysis can't be reproducible.


  • 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?

    Parameters related to dyslipidemia must done along with LCAT activity. for the true interpretation.


  • 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 work is at a low profile and an  incomplete research work


  • Other Comments:

    Low LCAT levels due to the above mentioned other causes(other than smoking) must be excluded carefully

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

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Since year 2001

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Effect of Smoking on Serum Lecithin: Cholesterol Acyltransferase Activity[Review of the article 'Effects of Smoking on Serum Lecithin: Cholesterol Acyltransferase Activity ' by Kshitiz K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002670
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of Effects of Smoking on Serum LCAT Activity
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 03 Apr 2013 04:24:06 AM GMT

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

    LCAT activity tends to be lower in smokers than in non-smokers


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

    No. The language of the abstract bears an uncanny resemblance to an earlier paper on this topic of LCAT activity in smokers and non-smokers.

     

    Dirican M, Sarandöl E, Ulukaya E, Tokullugil HA. J Med Invest. 1999 Aug;46(3-4):169-72. Effects of smoking on serum lipid and lipoprotein concentrations and lecithin: cholesterol acyltransferase activity.


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

    It is difficult to make the claims without statistical significance.


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

    The results are non statistically signifincat to support the claims


  • 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?

    1. Details regarding the LCAT assay are not provided
    2. Appropriate reference for the criteria used for including subjects in the smokers group needs to be mentioned


  • 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?

    There are several inconsistencies in the paper.

    1. In the abstract and methods section, it is mentioned that 30 smokers and 30 non-smokers were included in the study but in the illustration 1 of results, it is mentioned 20 non-smokers and 60 smokers. Author should clarify on this point regarding the correct numbers.

    2. There is a disparity in the data regarding age and BMI of smokers and non-smokers as mentioned in the results in the text and in illustration 1. In fact the data seems to be switched between the two groups, this needs to be clarified

    3. How was the Brinkmann index for exposure to cigarette smoke determined? There is no mention of this in the text nor any reference for the same is quoted. The discussion makes no mention of this comparison

    4. The author needs to mention the reference for the guideline used for grouping the study subjects into smokers (5 cigarettes or more for a year)

    5. Eventhough the in the methods it is mentioned that lipid profile and other tests were done on the samples, their results are not mentioned in the paper. The lipid profile results in smokers and non-smokers would improve the paper.


  • 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. The paper lacks details on methods used, basis of grouping the study subjects and full results of parameters studied as claimed in the methods section. The paper could have been prepared more carefully avoiding mistakes in the data regarding number of study subjects included and in the language of the paper in general


  • 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:

    Biochemistry, enzymology, diabetes

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review of Effects of Smoking on Serum LCAT Activity[Review of the article 'Effects of Smoking on Serum Lecithin: Cholesterol Acyltransferase Activity ' by Kshitiz K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002667
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 article aims at evaluating the effects of smoking on lecithin: cholesterol acyltransferase activity.


  • 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 biomedical researchers.


  • Other Comments:

    Lecithin: cholesterol acyltransferase activity is a key factor in the esterification  of plasma cholesterol and reverse cholesterol transport.  This activity level tended to be lower in smokers.  It can be considered that reverse cholesterol transport can accumulate in the peripheral tissues more in smokers than in non smokers.

  • 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.Effects of Smoking on Serum Lecithin: Cholesterol Acyltransferase Activity[Review of the article 'Effects of Smoking on Serum Lecithin: Cholesterol Acyltransferase Activity ' by Kshitiz K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002662
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse