Submited on: 18 Oct 2010 07:33:16 PM GMT
Published on: 18 Oct 2010 08:57:51 PM GMT
 
Spontaneous uterine rupture
Posted by Dr. Sezgin Yilmaz on 19 Jan 2011 10:29:19 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    I think that following the management of grammer and language of the article it is quite worty to publish in webmedcentral

     

    Sincerely

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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 operated such a case several years ago in my clinic. 

  • How to cite:  Yilmaz S .Spontaneous uterine rupture[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Uterine Rupture ' by Caga T].WebmedCentral 2011;2(1):WMCRW00390
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse