-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
I would suggest the authors re-write the abstract, the current one is in my opinion too brief (39 words) and one cannot obtain a good holistic summary of the case report from this. I would suggest a structured abstract i.e. with headings of Introduction, Case presentation/report and Conclusions.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The authors use both American and United Kingdom English at the same time e.g. caecal and cecal, “Average cecal diameter after CS is 6.4 cm. In patients with a caecal dilatation of less than 10 cm in diameter, the treatment is…”
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
The authors use abbreviations such as CS, GIT, C&S, Ut, etc. without clarification or the clarification happens later on after first use in the paper. For example, readers outside the field may not know that Ut means uterus.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
The authors use trade names for drugs e.g. Keflex, the International nonproprietary name is preferred generally in academic discourse because using the trade name may imply endorsement of a particular company or perhaps the authors hold shares in the company.
-
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?
Capital letters appear midsentence not infrequently.
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
“Us guided aspiration done showing ascetic fluid, no intestinal content, no bleeding, …” consider ascitic instead of ascetic.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ascitic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ascetic
-
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?
I would suggest the authors read the following article if they have not done so already and incorporate some of its viewpoints (this is the latest and most comprehensive review on Ogilvie syndrome to the best of my knowledge): Jain A, Vargas HD. Advances and challenges in the management of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ogilvie syndrome). Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2012; 25(1):37-45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3348732/
-
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?
I would suggest that the authors describe what the figures show instead of just saying, “Figure 1: Abdominal X-ray”. It might not be obvious to readers what exactly the images show.
-
Other Comments:
Overall, the case report is worthwhile reporting and helps advance understanding of this rare entity. The aforementioned technical issues unfortunately weaken an otherwise outstanding case report from which much can be learnt.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Masukume G, Sengurayi E, Muchara A, Mucheni E, Ndebele W, Ngwenya S. Full-term abdominal extrauterine pregnancy complicated by post-operative ascites with successful outcome: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2013; 7:10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23302289
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
MB ChB(UZ), Dip Obst(SA)
- How to cite: Masukume G .Review on Ogilivies syndrome: Case report[Review of the article 'Ogilivie's syndrome: Case report ' by Rafie L].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003054
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
The purpose of this article is to present a case of Ogilivie's Syndrome.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes- It would be a great seminar for medical residents.
The clinical features of Ogilvie's Syndrome are non-specific. This makes its diagnosis difficult. The most common symptom of the syndrome is abdominal distension. Various treatment options are discussed by the authors. Ogilivie's syndrome is associated with trauma, sepsis, and abdominal or pelvic surgery.
None
No
No
None
Clinical associate professor