Submited on: 22 Jan 2015 04:45:33 PM GMT
Published on: 23 Jan 2015 05:39:08 AM GMT
A complete and well written review
Posted by Prof. Pietro G Calo on 24 Jan 2015 09:19:37 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The main claims of the paper are to provide comprehensive and concise account of BBDs, to highlight the current concepts regarding the pathogenesis of BBDs, and to describe the accepted treatments for common BBDs. They are not very important: the paper reports concepts already known and established for a lot of time, without expressing new concepts. The paper does not appear particularly updated.

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

    These claims are not novel. The paper reports well known concepts already described in numerous texts. Nothing new in the classifications and treatment is reported.

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

    The claims are properly placed in the context of the previous literature. Moreover, the references are not very updated, there are no recent references, the newest being of 2005.

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

    The results supports the claims. This is a review and not an original scientific paper and therefore there is only a summary of the data published in literature.

  • 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?

    A protocol is not provided

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

    The methodology is valid. The paper is well written.

  • 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?

    Since this is a review I do not think there's much to add, but the article could be updated.

  • 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?

    The paper is not outstanding in its discipline. The concepts are old and well-established, nothing new is expressed in this article

  • Other Comments:

    The work is well written, but nothing new is added to the knowledge that everyone have in the field.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have suitable experience and knowledge to review this article

  • How to cite:  Calo P G.A complete and well written review[Review of the article 'Benign breast disorders: An insight with a detailed literature review ' by Rodrigues G].WebmedCentral 2015;6(1):WMCRW003180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse