Submited on: 27 Sep 2012 01:21:44 AM GMT
Published on: 27 Sep 2012 07:37:53 PM GMT
 

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

    It is review of the literature on the involvement of glia cells in neuropathic pain. It is true that glia do play an active role in inflammatory chronic pain and hence it is important to determine molecular mechanisms so to develop more targeted novel therapies. Consequently a synthesis on the research of a particular topic is always relevant and helpfull for scientists. I would suggest to the authors to focus thier review on TRPV1 so not overlap too much with Inouie's review on the same topic.


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

    It is rather a retrospective passive approach than a critical analysis or the use of a different perspective to the same problem. Unfortunatly just recently INOUE's lab published in glia [GLIA 61:55–61 (2013)] a review on the same topic. Their approach is more constructive as they explain in more depth molecular mechanisms in inflammatory chornic pain by giving a brief account of and citing relevant experiments. They offer a better synthesis and more educational. It will make the present review difficult to find currently a place in the literature in the context of this other more complete review.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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:

    This review would be suitable for uninitiated but would fall short for biologist.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Yes

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Durrenberger P F.Participations of Glias and Immune Cells in Neuropathic Pain[Review of the article 'Participations of Glias and Immune Cells in Neuropathic Pain ' by Nakagawa H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(11):WMCRW002344
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of
Posted by Dr. Marco Luchetti on 01 Oct 2012 08:58:55 AM GMT

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

    This is a review paper on the role of glia and immune cells in the pathogenesis of neuropathic pain


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

    Not applicable, this is a review paper.


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

    N/A


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

    N/A


  • 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?

    N/A


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

    N/A, this is a narrative review


  • 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?

    No, the paper is well written.


  • 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 outstanding, it does not add much to what already present in literature


  • 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:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    MSc in Pain Management

  • How to cite:  Luchetti M .Review of [Review of the article 'Participations of Glias and Immune Cells in Neuropathic Pain ' by Nakagawa H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002265
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse