-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
Incidence of mortality related to TRUS guided prostatic biopsies
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
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
-
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?
No
-
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?
Real pubmed search had to be done, collecting and studying all papers that discuss TRUS related complications. the paper, the author mentioned, with the specified mortality rate was expected to be criticized by the author. effort had to be done to collect data on the available patients for the author. the discussion is empty with unnecessart historical part. nearly there is no conclusion at the end of the paper.
-
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:
No
-
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:
Uro-oncology Surgeon
- How to cite: Kotb A F.Incidence of TRUS Guided Mortality[Review of the article 'Incidence of Trans Rectal Ultra Sound Guided Prostatic Biopsy Related Mortality ' by Bluhm S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002303
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
To study the incidence of mortality for trans rectal ultra sound guided biopsy
-
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
Yes
-
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
-
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?
No
-
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?
The exact message from this article is not clear. whether it is only statistical search for change in the incidence in mortality related to this procedure or actual search to find out the root causes in change of this incedence if there are. i feel the review should be to lower the incidence from these procedures & to develop the ideal protocol to do so. otherwise it is a futile effort as just collecting the data not going to change the actual problem.
-
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:
No
-
Competing interests:
0
-
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 in chrge of the cancer program of my institute.
- How to cite: Belekar D M.Incidence of Trans Rectal Ultra Sound Guided Biopsy Related Mortality[Review of the article 'Incidence of Trans Rectal Ultra Sound Guided Prostatic Biopsy Related Mortality ' by Bluhm S].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002294
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
This study provides an anti-thesis to the high mortality rate reported by Gallia etal (2008).
The importance of the paper comes from possible safe approach of TRUS technique, and not agree with previous publication.
Format:
1. There are grammatical errors, with poor written communication.
2. Methods need to provide detail statistical approach.
3. Statistical graphs and tables will be helpful.
There are similar studies, but not the same methodologic setting. This is the first study to show that the direct anti-thesis of TRUS related high mortality rate.
Similar work-example:
1. Patient information leaflets for Transrectal Ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: Results of North Thames deanery survey.
Shergill I, Bahl K, Farjad M, Phipps C, Fowlis G. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 28; 3:27. Epub 2010 Jan 28.
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
NA
NA
None
None
No
No
None
Genito-Urologic cancers