Submited on: 16 Apr 2011 03:11:48 PM GMT
Published on: 17 Apr 2011 12:42:25 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? 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? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Typing error sessions NOT sections of chemoembolisation in the case description.

    The comparison with other types of coils and embolics would be required to remove the bias towards a specific manufacturers coils.

    Post coiling DSA imaging is not shown to demonstrate cessation of flow into the pseudoaneurysm.

    A F/U CT scan at 4-8 weeks would have been useful to demonstrate the success of coils embolisation.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    25 years in Radiology, 20 yrs in Interventional Radiology.

  • How to cite:  Sherazi Z A.Superior Mesenteric Artery Pseudoaneurysm Successfully Treated By Selective Embolization With Terumo Hydrocoil[Review of the article 'Enlarging Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm Successfully Treated By Selective Angiography And Embolization With Terumo Hydrocoil: A Case Report And Review Of The Literature ' by Bakir E].WebmedCentral 2011;2(6):WMCRW00826
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? 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:

    Well written article, with good research.

    The case discussion could have been a bit shorter  ex: para4, desciption of HCC findings para5,MDT discussion and para 6 with discussion of how these findings evlolved, maes intresting reading, but not totally relevent to subsequent discussion.

     

    A brief discussion about why use terumo hydrocoil vs conventional coils, about the percieved advantage of using the same in this case, and over all advantages of terumocoil would have further improved the scientific vlue of the article

  • 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:

    17 years in radiology

  • How to cite:  Koteyar S R.SMA Aneurysm treated with Terumo hyrdocoil - review of literature[Review of the article 'Enlarging Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm Successfully Treated By Selective Angiography And Embolization With Terumo Hydrocoil: A Case Report And Review Of The Literature ' by Bakir E].WebmedCentral 2011;2(6):WMCRW00805
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? 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:

    Its good topic and case study is presented in a very attractive and interested way.The conclusion is also be intersting and look benificial for future studies as a good reference.

  • 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:

    15 year

  • How to cite:  Gilani S A.Enlarging Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm Successfully Treated By Selective Angiography And Embolization With Terumo Hydrocoil[Review of the article 'Enlarging Superior Mesenteric Artery Aneurysm Successfully Treated By Selective Angiography And Embolization With Terumo Hydrocoil: A Case Report And Review Of The Literature ' by Bakir E].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00699
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse