Submited on: 23 May 2014 12:42:44 PM GMT
Published on: 24 May 2014 01:15:17 PM GMT
 
Comment on the reported case of Classic Virilizing Non-salt loosing CAH
Posted by Prof. Pralhad Kushtagi on 03 Aug 2014 03:02:43 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    It is a case report. Intention of the authors is to present a case of Classic Virilizing Non-salt losing Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.


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

    There are no definite claims.


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

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    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?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    The attempt of the authors to present review of CAH would have been effective had they given more importance to the case presented. The written presentation of case report proper is not clear and should have gone through the English language edit. The findings/ claim like ‘severe hirsutism’ ‘improvement in hirsutism’ – could have been presented objectively by providing eg., Ferriman Gallwey scores.

    The remark in the conclusion that it’s a ‘rarely presented case in Saudi Arabia…..’cannot be made out of the blue. It should be substantiated.

    The length of the review could be pruned - eg., the second paragraph in introduction 'The phenotype.........hypertension[...]' is repeated later in the discussion section. The retition could have been avoided.

    The difference in the language used in review of literature and that of case report proper is very obvious.

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

    None

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Medical College; Consultant on Obstetrics and Gynecology at Medical College Hospitals.

  • How to cite:  Kushtagi P .Comment on the reported case of Classic Virilizing Non-salt loosing CAH[Review of the article 'Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: Case report ' by Aljayar L].WebmedCentral 2014;5(8):WMCRW003090
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 30 May 2014 02:16:54 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The main purpose of this article is to present a case report of congenital adrenal hyperplasia.


  • 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 in a hospital.


  • Other Comments:

    The article describes the case of a 27 year old single Saudi woman. She has a very high testosterone level. Patient underwent corrective surgery and was placed on hormone replacement therapy. The authors state that the diagnosis of congenital adrenal hyperplasia requires a multidisciplinary approach. Proper treatment greatly increases the health and quality of life of the affected female.

  • 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.Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia[Review of the article 'Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: Case report ' by Aljayar L].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003055
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse