Submited on: 06 Sep 2010 09:54:43 PM GMT
Published on: 06 Sep 2010 10:21:44 PM GMT
 

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

    The topic is exciting to. Catecholamine levels during the period assessed by the authors is essential to know it,


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

    No. With reading it, I realize that , this clinical paper, talks about an indigenous population compared with a general population. Therefore, the title does not correspond to the content. 


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

    Dubiously


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

    Yes, I think 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?

    I can see many defects on research . The statistical description is conspicuously absent. 


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

    Not. At all.


  • 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?

    Many!


  • 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 in this way.


  • Other Comments:

    Firstly I have to say I liked the title of this little essay.  But with reading it, I realize that , this clinical paper, talks about an indigenous population compared with a general population. Therefore, the title does not correspond to the content.   Second, there is a criterion of "exclusion" which I do not understand its why. Why chest pain was excluded?  The topic is exciting to. Catecholamine levels during the period assessed by the authors is essential to know it, but I could nothing  read about them in this paper.   I can see many defects on research . The statistical description is conspicuously absent. However, it is my moral duty to encourage authors for review and to give more light on this fascinating subject. 

  • 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'm a Professor of Clinical & Experimental Cardiology at East Boston Hospital and its School of Medicien.

  • How to cite:  Breijo-Marquez F R.The title does not correspond to the content. [Review of the article 'Circadian Variation In Acute Coronary Syndromes ' by Jagannathan V].WebmedCentral 2010;4(8):WMCRW002848
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This article confirms the findings of previous studies on this subject. The authors have explained reasins for some of their exclusion criteria but not all and it is not clear why certain exclusion criteria were chosen. It would have been more useful if authors would have included unselected patients, irrespective of their medications. In the real world, most of the people with hypertension or other cardiovascular risk factors would be taking these medications (as used in exclusion criteria by authors) and the study would have been more informative and applicable to real world clinical practice if above were inlcuded. Subgroup analysis could have been done to compare the results between different groups. However, it is a good contribution to scarce literature on Indian subjects who are resident in India.

  • 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:

    Diurnal variation in acute as well as chronic cardiovascular events has been well described. However, etiology and pathophysiologic considerations remain far from clear at present. An association with melatonin secretion, corticosteroids level fluctuation, sympathetic overactivity in early morning and others have been described. These may be responsible partly for the diurnal variation. However, no clear descrepancy so far have been observed in relation to correlation of ethnicity with diurnal variation of blood pressure fluctuation and cardiovascular events.

  • How to cite:  Singh M .Circadian variation in acute coronary syndromes in Indian population.[Review of the article 'Circadian Variation In Acute Coronary Syndromes ' by Jagannathan V].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00246
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse