-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
By
Dr. Mohammad Othman 
,
Dr. Sahal Khojah 
,
Dr. Tarig Fathi
,
Dr. Taghread Alkholy
,
Dr. Lamya Aljayar
,
Dr. Jehan Alhazmi
,
Dr. Sahal Khojah
,
Dr. Tarig Fathi
,
Dr. Taghread Alkholy
,
Dr. Lamya Aljayar
,
Dr. Jehan Alhazmi
Submited on: 25 May 2014 06:46:14 AM GMT
Published on: 26 May 2014 05:19:09 AM GMT
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This case report on placenta previa is really interesting, pointing out a disease really dangerous.
-
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 protocol provided
-
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
-
Other Comments:
No other comment
-
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:
I have experience with gynecological data.
- How to cite: Scicchitano P .Revision of the manuscript entitled Vasa praevia; case report[Review of the article 'Vasa praevia; case report' by Alhazmi J].WebmedCentral 2014;5(8):WMCRW003093
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The purpose of this paper is to present a case of vasa praevia.
-
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 lecture for medical residents.
-
Other Comments:
Vasa praevia is anucommon condition that may lead to prfounf featl distress or fetal death. In vasa praevia, the cord inserts into the membranes through which the vessels run until they insert into the placenta. Severe fetal hemorrhage can result. This demonstrates the importance of prenatal detection of patients with vasa praevia. Elective caesarean section is the preferred method of delivery when vasa praevia has been identified antenatally.
-
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.Vasa Praevia[Review of the article 'Vasa praevia; case report' by Alhazmi J].WebmedCentral 2014;5(6):WMCRW003064
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
The authors report a case of vaginal bleeding because of vasa praevia and velamentous insertion. Prompted by that case they did a survey on the literature concerning vasa praevia and claim that the outcome could be improved by generally looking for that condition with colour flow. They also claim that vasa praevia are not difficult to recognize. They postulate a general screeing. The authors are absolutely right in claiming that a general screening would be beneficial if feasible. The feasibility of such a screening remains unclear.
The literature review is mainly reproductive.
It remains unclear how the authors come to the conclusion that vasa praevia are not difficult to recognize and common enough to be sought after. In the introduction they state that vasa praevia are easy to miss and are an uncommon varaint of placental anatomy with an incidence of 1:2000 to 1:5000 pregancies. In the case they are presenting the diagnosis was not found antenatally although a Doppler examination was performed.
The authors conclude that vasa praevia should be generally sought after, are not difficult to find and that the outcome of the affected pregancies could be improved by an elective c-section. Whereas the last statement is definitely correct, the authors do not provide proof for their conclusion. For coming to that conclusion there should be at least a series of patients where an active search for vasa praevia has been performed, the patients with the condition identified and the outcome omproved by c-section. To find 10 patients with vasa praevia by screeing this would require between 20.000 and 50.000 patients screened.
N/A
The value of the paper lies not so much within the case it reports but within the literature review that has been done.
See above.
The paper is a thorough review of the literature concerning vasa praevia. As a review it is an excellent tool for education and can be incorporated in lectures. The conclusion though is not supported by the findings. This literature search can be hypothesis generating and a large number of patients would have to be screened to support the conclusion in this paper.
The authors should reconsider their conclusion. The literature review is excellent and after revision of the conclusion worth publishing.
None
Yes
No
None
I am leading a center for maternofetal medicine level I.