Home » Reviews
The Role of Oxalate in Urolithiasis
By Dr. Uros Bele , Dr. Tine Hajdinjak
Submited on: 11 Jan 2012 09:08:53 PM GMT
Published on: 12 Jan 2012 07:34:11 AM GMT
 
A concise review of a promising research field
Posted by Dr. Tomislav Sarenac on 19 Feb 2012 11:01:53 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? 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:

    It is a fine article, furthermore enlightening a topic of basic research field, of which clinicians tend to be less acquainted with. One however tends to expect that a specialist of the area be an expert in basic metabolomic properties of the cardinal organ of the urotract - the kidney. This is where the authors contribute to the area in question. They enlighten new viewpoints to the oxalate metabolism, stretching wide-accepted theories with citations of latest research, elucidating valid conclusions, which serve as cornerstones for further development of this clinical problem. It will be interesting to follow up what will authors find out about the treatment options proposed here in the near future.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    Doctor of medicine, anatomist

  • How to cite:  Sarenac T .A concise review of a promising research field[Review of the article 'The Role of Oxalate in Urolithiasis ' by Hajdinjak T].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001503
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A very concise review of a relevant subject
Posted by Mr. Aljaz Majer on 06 Feb 2012 05:37:43 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? 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:

    Paper structure is adequate, makes for a smooth read. All relevant research papers on the subject appear to be cited.

  • 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:

    Molecular biologist. Trained to understand basic biochemistry.

  • How to cite:  Majer A .A very concise review of a relevant subject[Review of the article 'The Role of Oxalate in Urolithiasis ' by Hajdinjak T].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001467
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Nice article with quite a lot of literature reviewed
Posted by Dr. Robi Kelc on 16 Jan 2012 07:49:39 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? 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:

    Nice review, with many cited literature. Maybe could add tables or charts to present some of the data in it.

  • 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:

    surgeon

  • How to cite:  Kelc R .Nice article with quite a lot of literature reviewed[Review of the article 'The Role of Oxalate in Urolithiasis ' by Hajdinjak T].WebmedCentral 2012;3(1):WMCRW001394
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.