Submited on: 08 Apr 2013 09:02:54 AM GMT
Published on: 08 Apr 2013 12:25:21 PM GMT
 

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

    1. This is a retrospective study of 84 patients at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow.
    2. This article aims to analyse the acute assessment and management of head injury patients attending a selected  center
    3. To correlate  with the SIGN guidelines.

    It is highly doubtful, How far this statistics is going to help other centres? Perhaps the information/outcome may be useful to the better administration of victoria infirmary


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

    No

    1. This study  is not a novel study!
    2. It is just a simple analysis of written documents/case notes.


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

    No! The analysis is incomplete with regard to SIGN


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

    yes! Partially!


  • 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 protocol provided


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

    1. No specific methodolgy!
    2. Sample was randomly selected.
    3. No inclusion/exclusion criterion given
    4. Many vital points are missing!


  • 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?

    Nothing can improve the statistical facts!


  • 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:

    Many important issues are not addressed in this paper. (eg) GCS scale, associated signs, cross imaging investigations and their findings, type of trauma, intervention and outcome, reason for referral, prognosis, follow-up etc

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

    Published on MVA, Supervised dissertation/Research works on Head injury

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have 36 years of experience in Radiology investigations including neuroradiology

  • How to cite:  Abdul Kareem M M.Analysis of the Management of Head Injuries at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow with Respect to the SIGN Guidelines[Review of the article 'Analysis of the Management of Head Injuries at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow with Respect to the SIGN Guidelines ' by Stevenson R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002785
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The SIGN guidelines are not followed in many cases. Serious complications may follow if the  guidelines are not followed.


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

    No. The paper is a retrospective study but is classified as a systematic review. It is  difficult to understand the intention of the authors.


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

    No. If the type of the study is not clear, the results cannot be interpreted appropriately.


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

    We need to define the study first.


  • 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?

    No. The reader is not sure about what type of study is this.


  • 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?

    Yes. The authors must rethink about the type of the study: systematic review or retrospective.


  • 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 at all. It will be very confusing to the audience.


  • Other Comments:

    Recommend that the work be re-drafted and re-submitted.

  • 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:

    Significant: over 90% of my work is trauma.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Analysis of the Management of Head Injuries at the Victoria Infirmar, Glascow with respect to the Sign guidelines[Review of the article 'Analysis of the Management of Head Injuries at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow with Respect to the SIGN Guidelines ' by Stevenson R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002679
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    To analyse the management of head injuries with respect to SIGN guidelines


  • 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?

    No


  • 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?

    No


  • 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?

    Management of head injuries is one of the most challenging surgical scenario a surgeon can encounter.

    This article does not focus on some of the key issues of patient care regarding head injuries as below-

    1. what was the GCS score of patient on arrival.
    2. whether any co-morbid factors were present along, besides alcohol consumption
    3. whether all patients underwent CT brain
    4. what were the CT scan findings
    5. how many patients required any intervention against simple observation
    6. what were the changes in GCS throughout
    7. why in only few patients the SIGN protocols was thoroughly followed besides problem with manpower
    8. any changes needed in SIGN protocol after this study
    9. how long these patients were followed up after discharge
    10. any residual brain damage observed in these patients
    11. why only 84 patients were incorporated in this retrospective study
    12. is the SIGN protocol good overall
    13. why all these patients were treated in orthopaedic ward & not in dedicated trauma ward


  • 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:

    No

  • 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 have worked in one of the busiest trauma centres in india in Mumbai & adjudged as the best trauma registrar for my work there

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.Analysis of Management of Head Injuries with Respect to SIGN Guidelines[Review of the article 'Analysis of the Management of Head Injuries at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow with Respect to the SIGN Guidelines ' by Stevenson R].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002677
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse