Home » Reviews
Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances
By Dr. Shveta Bali , Dr. Ritika Sachdev , Dr. Rajesh Sinha , Dr. Namrata Sharma
Submited on: 20 Nov 2010 02:52:50 AM GMT
Published on: 20 Nov 2010 04:26:06 PM GMT
 
Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances
Posted by Dr. Nagindra Vashisht on 05 Dec 2010 05:47:58 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? 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:

    Article is well written and covers the topic on graft rejection comprehensively. 

  • 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:

    Limited experience in the filed of cornea. i'm a practising vitreo-retinal surgeon

  • How to cite:  Vashisht N .Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances[Review of the article 'Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances ' by Sharma N].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00196
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances
Posted by Dr. Subrata Mandal on 03 Dec 2010 03:35:46 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? 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:

    Article is well written with good number of references. It describes all aspects of graft rejection. It will be an excellent reference to the students, teachers as well as practitioners for quick revision of corneal graft rejection.

  • 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:

    Other than doing tesis work on LASIK not much experience in this specific area. I am    doing retina practice currently. 

  • How to cite:  Mandal S .Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances[Review of the article 'Corneal Graft Rejection: A Review Of Literature And Recent Advances ' by Sharma N].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00191
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.