-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
liposarcome although rare, should be considered and primarily managed surgically. the case doesn't add much to literatures.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No. no enough description of the case; radiologically, surgically or pathologically.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
NA
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
Good literatures review had to be included
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
No, literatures review had to be included
-
Other Comments:
No
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Uro-oncology surgeon
- How to cite: Kotb A F.Giant Liposarcoma[Review of the article ' Giant Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma ' by Bouabdallah Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002107
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This is a case report on rare mesenchymal tumor, giant retroperitoneal liposarcoma (GRL).
Format: There are spelling errors and often mixed with French words. i.e., abstract-second line-tissue has been spelled as “tissu”.
Discussion-MRI-Magnetic imaging resonnaceed-please use English words.
Consistency-Parenthesis used in introduction changed with brackets in discussion.
References- There are 19 references, the space after the years are not consistent to each other(please compare references 4 and 5).
Illustrations-Figure 4. Please show liposarcoma clearly by using arrows, and together with normal control for comparison.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Patient history is novel. There other case studies on GRL. Examples:
1. Fernandez-Pello S, Rivas M, Rodríguez Villamil L, Fernández I, Pérez-Carral JR, Benito P, Cuervo FJ, Alemany A, Alonso RA. Giant retroperitoneal sarcoma:case report. Arch Esp Urol. 2012 May;65(4):492-495. English, Spanish. PubMed PMID: 22619141.
2. Gan Y, Zhou J, Lai TQ, Wu JH, Gao CQ. Giant retroperitoneal liposarcoma. JRSM. Short Rep. 2012 Feb;3(2):9. Epub 2012 Feb 14. PubMed PMID: 22393470; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3291421.
-
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
-
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes
-
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
NA
-
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
NA
-
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
Pathology results need better presentations and figure legends.
-
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
NA
-
Other Comments:
None
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Genitourologic cancers
- How to cite: Anonymous.Giant Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma[Review of the article ' Giant Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma ' by Bouabdallah Z].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002077
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
To study giant retroperitoneal liposarcoma
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Why this paper can not include any photograph of the specimen tumor removed or any radiological window showing important preoperative findings? the paper does not mention anything about radiological features of this entity. it also does not mention the prognostic factors & treatment options for this. the case history is written very short. it also should focus the use & need of preoperative tissue diagnosis of this giant tumor.
No
No
No
No
No
Preoperative tissue diagnosis is important while treating such giant retroperitoneal tumors.