Submited on: 04 Apr 2011 09:05:28 AM GMT
Published on: 04 Apr 2011 06:16:26 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? 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? 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? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    The aim of the paper is somewhat obscure.

    The author wants to examine clinical outcomes in critically ill patient who are anaemic and are transfused versus patients who are anaemic and not transfused.

     

    The methodology section is inadequate; does not explain how the study cohort was selected , no time period mentioned. Was anaemia evluated on admission to ICU or at what point of time in iCU is not explained. What triggers are used to transfuse patients in the index ICU

     

    result section is very inadequate. The details with the illustration should be in results sections. demographic details, reason for transfusion should be included.

     

    It is known that patients transfused in ICU are sicker patient and no indices such as APACHE score has been used to adjust for the confounding factors.

     

    A simple statistical test will not explain the association of transfusion and mortality , need to include a number of other variables such as age, sex, diagnoses, APACHE scores.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • 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:

    transfusion research , medical background

  • How to cite:  Sinha R .Review of A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients [Review of the article ' A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients ' by Ahmed M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001262
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Hematological review
Posted by Dr. Chris Rizk on 04 May 2011 07:10:43 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? 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? 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:

    Anemia in critical care cases considered one of the most big serous proplems faced doctors with critical care cases, The studies should do on the big numbers to be more accuracy.

     

  • 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:

    internal medicine

  • How to cite:  Rizk C .Hematological review[Review of the article ' A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients ' by Ahmed M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(5):WMCRW00720
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review on Anemia Paper
Posted by Dr. Remon Talaat on 19 Apr 2011 02:02:37 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? Partly
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? 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:

    I was recommending to increase the number of subjects included in this study if there is possibility, otherwise, I think it is good paper and add to the scientific community

  • 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:

    MOre than 9 years in research and clinical exposure

  • How to cite:  Talaat R .Review on Anemia Paper[Review of the article ' A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients ' by Ahmed M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00690
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? No
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? 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? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    2) The authors indicate that they wish to address two research questions:
    Firstly on the prevalence of anaemia.
    Secondly on the association of blood transfusion and mortality in critically ill patients.
    For the prevalence study, what was the sample population?  I gathered from the write up that the author had used the same 100 subjects for the second research question to answer the first question as well.  This is inappropriate.  For a prevalence study we include those with and without anaemia, whereas for the second research question, we only study on those with anaemia. What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria?  I noticed that this was mentioned in the abstract. However more importantly these information should be explicitly detailed in the methodology section.
    For the second research question,  what was sampling method for the 100 subject.  The author said, 50 of whom received blood transfusion versus the remaining 50 who did not.  Was there any randomisation done?  How was
    the patients selected to receive or not to receive transfusion? What was the Hb level which triggered transfusion?  Are the two groups of patients comparable in terms of Apache scores or other prognostic indices?
    Obviously anyone with milder anaemia may have less severe disease. Obviously this will lead to lower transfusion requirement and less mortality.  I beleive the design of this study as vaguely presented in this write-up is open to bias leading to a flawed conclusion.
    3) I suspect that the intention of the author is to validate the findings of Hebert's study regarding blood transfusion in critically ill patient on their population.  The idea is not original but should be allowed as the population addressed here is ethnically different from those of Hebert's.
    5, 6 & 7) The methodology and result sections need to be rewritten.  These are the two areas that the authors should focus on for any paper to carry any scientific merits. The methods should be explicitly outlined.  The
    authors could duplicate Hebert's protocol.  Apparently the author had scattered the results around with tables and charts.  The result section is almost void of any information and appeared unintelligible.
    8) Some of the sentences are confusing.  For example in the result section, the author wrote: There was a very high significance between the pateints who had blood transfusion and those who did not. (P=0000) My
    comment: Significance of what?
    9) I have problem understanding table 2.  The title of a graph should summarize the idea represented by the figure.  I find title for figure 1 and 2 as inappropriate.  Why would the author state the title for figure 1
    as: The predominant peripheral smear picture was normochromic normocytic.

  • 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:

    I am a clinician experienced in internal medicine/haematology which indicates critical care

  • How to cite:  Dzarr A .A Review on Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients[Review of the article ' A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients ' by Ahmed M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00666
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Statistics Matter
Posted by Dr. Thomas F Heston on 11 Apr 2011 04:29:38 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? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
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? 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:

    The results section of this manuscript is inadequate. Comparing the clinical outcomes of those who received a transfusion compared to those that did not is a simple statistical test that needs to be performed on their data. Without these results the manuscript is pretty meaningless. Please do a more thorough statistical analysis of your data, and ideally include the data in your manuscript.

     

    Thank you for publishing your research on this interesting subject.

     

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • 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:

    Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

  • How to cite:  Heston T F.Statistics Matter[Review of the article ' A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients ' by Ahmed M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00662
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? Partly
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? 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? 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:

    The investigators should clarify the critically ill patients, An ICU will admit patients with multiple disorders which is threatening life, and anemia could be a part of the multi-organ failure, so symptomatically treating the patient will only improve the lab parameters but may not improve the outcome or prognosis.  So if the authors had clearly defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the study would have given greater information.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    the article is in press, A SIMPLE IMAGING METHOD FOR DEMONSTRATING RED CELL SIZES TO LIFE SCIENCES STUDENTS. National journal of Basic Medical Sciences, published from salem, Tamil Nadu, India. Will be published in May 2011.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Published a paper on measurement of red cell sizes and classification of anemia.

  • How to cite:  Satish N S. A Review on prospective study on anemia and blood transfusion in critically ill patients[Review of the article ' A Prospective Study on Anemia and Blood Transfusion in Critically ill Patients ' by Ahmed M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00643
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse