-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
,
Dr. Imane Ouafki 
,
Dr. Hanane Inrhaouen
,
Dr. Hind Mrabti
,
Prof. Hassan Errihani
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The claims are important since it is a very unnusual neoplasm.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
It is not novel, but it is not a well studied field.
-
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?
No. This manuscript presents no valid results since no microscopic results are presented. It is mandatory they include proper photomicrographs.
-
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?
Not apply.
-
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?
As it was written, inclusipon of proper phomicrographic material is mandatory.
-
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.
-
Other Comments:
Very bad manuscript.
-
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:
I am an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist.
- How to cite: Ledesma-Montes C .Primitive Heart Undifferenciated Sarcoma.[Review of the article 'Primitive Heart Undifferenciated Sarcoma: A case Report and Literature Review ' by Errihani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002215
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This is a case report of a patient with primary cardiac sarcoma, which are extremely rare. Their diagnosis should be suspected when unexplained cardiac symptoms occurs. The prognosis of these tumors are rather poor.
This is a very important case report since primary cardiac sarcoma represents 1% of malignant tumors in adults and 15% in children.
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
This central claim is not very novel. The most recent publication in the field:
Pathol Res Pract. 2011 Dec 15;207(12):769-74. Epub 2011 Nov 9.
Spectrum of cardiac tumors excluding myxoma: Experience of a tertiary center with review of the literature.
Kumar N, Agarwal S, Ahuja A, Das P, Airon B, Ray R.
Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029, India. rumasrc2@hotmail.com
-
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?
This is a case report.
-
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?
Recomended extra work:
1. Evidence of proof for the histopathological results is necessary.
2. Reference 5 needs punctuation revision for the consistency to other references.
3. Addition a scale to the illustration 1, will be helpful.
-
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?
This is a clinical case report, and there is not any lab experiments involved.
-
Other Comments:
NA
-
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:
Cancer biology field over a decade.
- How to cite: Guzey M .Primitive Heart Undifferentiated Sarcoma[Review of the article 'Primitive Heart Undifferenciated Sarcoma: A case Report and Literature Review ' by Errihani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002213
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
The authors have assembled a case report on a patient they have treated and also provided bibliographical information on the specific ailment: a heart sarcoma. The degree of detail is of the right level for a case report but I find that the scope of the literature review is lacking to exceed the capacity of the case report as a true literature review.
This case report does seem to describe a very rare ailment that does not yet have an established procedure of treatment in the field so should be of interest as a novel topic.
The authors do not necessarily use their own work to build upon the established literature but more so seem to use the literature as a reference for describing their own case study.
The nature of this case study was very descriptive and qualitative without much hard data presented. Since there was only one patient for this ailment, I do not think this is unacceptable. In fact, I think the authors did a relatively good job describing the details of their patient. Normally, in such a medically oriented case study, one would expect to find additional data pertaining to lab results but perhaps the authors did not have the full tools to perform and describe these results or perhaps the labs were not relevant but it would have been nice to have some commentary on this.
There were no specific methods described in this work beyond the physical descriptions of the surgery.
As mentioned above, it would have been nice to have had access to additional information about the patient or at least some commentary of what other examinations may have been performed.
Case reports by nature are meant to be short and to the point. So even though I offer some criticism about the level of hard data, I do not think the amount of information currently contained in this work is inappropriate.
I do not think this work is outstanding but I do think it is good enough to be of interest to others.
The quality of the English was relatively good but once in a while the authors did make use of more informal vocabulary. Small adjustments to this language I think would make it more suitable for a scientific audience.
No.
No
No
I have published works in cancer research.