Submited on: 22 Jul 2012 09:25:13 AM GMT
Published on: 23 Jul 2012 01:44:45 PM GMT
 
Treating Fungal Nail Infection.
Posted by Dr. Constantino Ledesma-Montes on 24 Jul 2012 04:22:04 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Author claim his father treated his infected nails with heat. Apparntly it is an important issue.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Not novel not original.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No. Results are not supported.


  • 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?

    Not apply


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Methodology seems valid.


  • 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?

    It is not a medical experiment. It is a rudimentary not scientific practice.


  • 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, never.


  • Other Comments:

    This kind of manuscripts have no scientofic support. It shows to the readers that this kind of manuscripts should not be presented. It is an anecdotic case that can be published in a local newspaper or something like that. The authors claims to present to cases, one of them with no data  or photographs and the other with no clinical picture of the lesions "treated witn the blowdryer". 

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    I am an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist with25 years experience in Dermatology

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .Treating Fungal Nail Infection.[Review of the article 'A Simple and Affordable Technique for Treating Fungal Nail Infection: Case Report ' by Walid M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002124
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Acceptable. Could be better though.
Posted by Dr. Ebtisam Elghblawi on 23 Jul 2012 05:00:28 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The main claim of the paper is how to use another cheap means to treat fungal nail infection which would take longer with the traditional ways of treatment.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    I cant tell if the claim is novel or not as there isnt any RCTs yet in this area. However it could stimulate so to prove such claim and replication. We need EB research.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Not sure.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Well according to the author, its. But i cant see the clue for that to make an assumption.


  • 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?

    No.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Its simple means and could be replicated.


  • 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?

    It could be explained better and presented better if the author had the two cases separately explained and illustrated before and after as well and explaining exactly and precisely how this achieved and assessed.


  • 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?

    Not sure.


  • Other Comments:

    The author claimed that the affected nails was brittle, and thick. Well it would one of both and i am not sure what was the case exactly.

  • 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:

    I have treated some cases, but i must admit it needs longer time to clear and patient commitment for follow ups.

  • How to cite:  Elghblawi E .Acceptable. Could be better though.[Review of the article 'A Simple and Affordable Technique for Treating Fungal Nail Infection: Case Report ' by Walid M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002115
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This paper has described a single way for treating nail fungal infection.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Heat therapy in the way the author has stated is novel. This method of nail fungal infection is unique.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    I have found no similar previous manuscript.


  • 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?

    Maybe.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes


  • 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?

    A more robust controlled randomized clinical trial comparing heat therapy with the known treatment options for fungal nail infection can give more invaluable data.


  • 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?

    I want to use the author's experience in practice in my private office.  


  • Other Comments:

    This paper is very interesting.

  • Competing interests:
    Nill
  • 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:

    Yaghoobi R, Rafiei A, Fathi E, Bagherani N. Fungal infections in patients with nail psoriasis in Khuzestan Province.Jundishapur J Microbiol 2010; 3:32-35.

  • How to cite:  Bagherani N .A Simple and Affordable Technique for Treating Fungal Nail Infection: Case Report [Review of the article 'A Simple and Affordable Technique for Treating Fungal Nail Infection: Case Report ' by Walid M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(7):WMCRW002114
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse