-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The main claim is the trial of the authors to help gouty patients with complementary treatment lines.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The claims are overestimated by the authors and should be presented in the context of classic medical
management supported by any other complementary medicine.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
The presented study includes non traditional lines of treatment.
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Building up and withdrawing conclusions based on one case is of no statistical value and should be
validated by performing the study on a larger population and preferably longitudinally.
-
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?
N/A
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
No its not
-
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?
More clinical and classic data are required about the lines of treatment.
-
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 its not outstanding.
-
Other Comments:
English language needs polishing. The presented article is not undertaken from a rheumatology
perspective. A scientist or researcher with experience in complementary or Chinese medicine would
better evaluate this hypothesis. The article is lengthy with redundancy in many sections. It has to be
wrapped up.
Abstract: ....there is not either any more effective clinic treatment than massage ....... without any
side effect. COMMENT: This statement of the abstract needs revision as new drugs are recently
added to the management armamentarium of gout.
Introduction: A lot of studies have performed and showed efficient results about the prevention [1].
COMMENT: More than one reference should be cited. we in anatomy and histology modeled meridian channels as a physiological system.
COMMENT: Statement needs clarification.
Methods:
The study design is poorly supported by valid references.
we model the sweat gland ducts as transportation ports of meridian channels for outputs or inputs, to exchange the information, ....COMMENT: Authors should present references that support the presented statements.
-
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:
Yes. Reviewer for more than 60 journals.
- How to cite: Anonymous.Modeling Gout or Gouty (Acute) Arthritis in Biomedical and Biochemical Infophysics[Review of the article 'Modeling Gout or Gouty (Acute) Arthritis in Biomedical and Biochemical Infophysics ' by Cheng K].WebmedCentral 2015;6(5):WMCRW003219
Description of Gout and the biological mechanisms that cause and may possibly releive symptoms.
No. The paper explicitly points out that the methods of manipulation and diet have been ussed in traditional Chinese culture.
Not really. I believe the author is attmepting to show the biology behind why the traditional methods are effective in relieving gout. However, the approach in this paper mixes the hypotheses with facts in a manner that makes it hard to distinguish what is known and what is hypothesized. This paper might be better if it was an actual literature review of tradiontal methods and biological pathways of disease and not an attempt to show that the methods are relevant.
Not really. One case is not a claim. Data on a group of gout patients would be better. Plus like in western medicine, individual typically respond uniquely to different treatments. Just because one individual finds relief in the manual methods, does not mean it is the solution for all indivudals, or even for a large majority of indiviuals with gout.
There is no protocol. This is not a clinical trial, but rather a case study with some literature review.
It has root in traditional Chinese medicine and I believe it has physiological reason to work, but one case study is not enough evidence.
yes. As stated before there is much relevant information about the biology behind gout and about the hypothesis why manual manipulation is useful. This paper should focus on the known biology and the tie between that and the hypothesized rationale of traditional methods.
I am not a rhuematologist, so I can not say. However, as a biostatistician who has done extensive work in OA, I would say the paper is lacking and would benefit from review by OA specialists.
The English grammar needs to be polished in order for the paper to flow.
Yes
No
None
Biostatistician who had done extensive research in OA/RA in clinical trials.