Submited on: 24 Feb 2011 12:48:41 PM GMT
Published on: 25 Feb 2011 10:17:02 PM 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? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
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? No
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? No
  • Other Comments:

    The paper is very poorly written and the topic is not original. English language needs substantial revision.

    The case report description is very short and fails to give relevant information about the NGT placement. Was it easy? or difficult? how many attempts? was the operator able to aspirate air or fluids? was it feasible to inject air? what was the "feeling" of the operator? I guess that NGT kinking as showed by chest x-ray would make aspiration and injection impossible. As I understand, the NGT was placed in the ED. It may be speculated that the procedure was done in emergency situation and hence not properly done and checked.

    Chest X-ray main limitation is x-ray exposure rather than costs or time.

    In my opinion, the best way to avoid NGT misplacement is to check accurately by first aspirating and then injecting. There should be an easy flow of air or fluid both on aspiration and injection.

     

     

  • 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:

    More than 15 years of ICU work.

  • How to cite:  Luchetti M .Review of "Correct Placement Nasogastric Tube In Intensive Care Unit. A Brief Case Report"[Review of the article 'Correct Placement Nasogastric Tube In Intensive Care Unit. A Brief Case Report ' by Marinelli N].WebmedCentral 2011;2(3):WMCRW00584
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Partly
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
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:

    Article is poorly written with spelling and grammatical errors.

    This so called "Whoosh test" is not new. It is in clinical practice fro years. I don't see any new information in this case report.  Authors also mentioned that CXR is "high cost". I doubt that in any part of the world.

  • 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:

    Working as a faculty in Hospital Medicine with Johns Hopkins University

  • How to cite:  Lakshmanadoss U .Correct Placement Nasogastric Tube In Intensive Care Unit. A Brief Case Report [Review of the article 'Correct Placement Nasogastric Tube In Intensive Care Unit. A Brief Case Report ' by Marinelli N].WebmedCentral 2011;2(3):WMCRW00546
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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? No
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? No
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:

    this article may be a start for the other research in the same field

  • 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:

    My experience in this area is about my job in the ICU.  

  • How to cite:  Scelsi S .Correct Placement Nasogastric Tube In Intensive Care Unit. A Brief Case Report[Review of the article 'Correct Placement Nasogastric Tube In Intensive Care Unit. A Brief Case Report ' by Marinelli N].WebmedCentral 2011;2(2):WMCRW00525
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse