Submited on: 18 Feb 2013 06:31:03 AM GMT
Published on: 18 Feb 2013 12:31:50 PM GMT
 
Reviewing the article titled
Posted by Dr. Nader El Seblani on 01 Nov 2017 07:49:14 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The author has aimed to investigate if there is any correlation between CT angiography and hsCRP and the consequent effect on predicting the risk and prognosis of ischemic stroke patients with diabetes type II.


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

    I'm not sure if that's novel, however they have not cited any similar previous research work.


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

    Definetly not, previous literature should have been stated and cited to support the article's claims which the author didn't do properly and adequatel.


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

    The stated results definitely do not support the author's claims. CT angiography is definetly not linearly correlated to hsCRP and the causality relationship that was concluded is no where close to statistical reality.


  • 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?

    biochemistry protocols were not provided 


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

    The author didn't offer enough description of the methodologiies, like for ELISA and samples storing and processing.


  • 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?

    Run a better statistical analysis, show the elisa results and conclude responsibly 


  • 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?

    The article has very low standards in writing, designing the study and in analyzing the data


  • Other Comments:

    improve your writing skills and get a statistician on board.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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 MD degree and Im pursuing in a PhD degree in neuroscience

  • How to cite:  El Seblani N .Reviewing the article titled [Review of the article 'CT Angiography and hsCRP evaluated in Type II Diabetes Complicated with Stroke. Anatomical and Biochemical Correlation ' by Tripathi K].WebmedCentral 2013;8(11):WMCRW003378
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review on
Posted by Dr. Akio Hiura on 27 Feb 2013 08:15:54 AM GMT

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

    Serum level of high sensitive C-reacted protein (hsCRP, a marker of inflammation, significant?amount  in diabetes) and Computed Tomography-Angiography (CTA) of neck vessels were assessed in 40 patients of type II diabetes with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Both side of the CTA figures were scored from 1 (no change) to 5 (significant stenosis). To date there are no studies on correlation between biochemical markers for endothelial dysfunction such as hsCRP and CTA figures, the authors found that hsCRP is a good biochemical marker for assessing disease risk and burden in patients of Type II diabetes with ischemic stroke. The level of hsCRP had a linear correlation and statistical significance with CTA score in the patients. Thus, the finding on the relationship between the increase of hsCRPand the increase of CTA score is an important due to its assessingthe value of disease risk and burden in patients of type II diabetes. It would play beneficial roles in early finding of the patients and in rescue the patients.


  • 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?

    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?

    NA(Not Animal Experiments)


  • 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?

    No


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    The number of control must be referred. The unit of the level of hsCRP should be indicated (for example, 8.7 plus minus 3.45 mg, μg, or ng etc.).

  • 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:

    Capsaicin and Pain

  • How to cite:  Hiura A .Review on [Review of the article 'CT Angiography and hsCRP evaluated in Type II Diabetes Complicated with Stroke. Anatomical and Biochemical Correlation ' by Tripathi K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002540
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Number of controls were mentioned as 40. The unit used for hsCRP was mg/L as mentioned in Table 2.
Responded by Dr. Amit Nandan Dhar Dwivedi on 05 Mar 2013 06:03:27 AM
Review on
Posted by Prof. Uner Tan on 25 Feb 2013 08:08:12 PM GMT

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

    This study demonstrates that hsCRP, is good surrogate biochemical marker for assessing disease risk and burden in patient of Type II Diabetes presenting with stroke. It showed a linear correlation and statistical significance with CT angiography score providing a good opportunity to combine anatomical details with disease pathophysiology at biochemical level.


  • 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?

    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?

    Yes


  • 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?

    No


  • 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:
    No
  • 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:

    Physiology and pathophysiology of the hormonal system

  • How to cite:  Tan U .Review on [Review of the article 'CT Angiography and hsCRP evaluated in Type II Diabetes Complicated with Stroke. Anatomical and Biochemical Correlation ' by Tripathi K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002538
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    That endothelial injury proteins like hsCRP can be used as markers for assessing disease risk in Type II DM patients with stroke. Important since they can be used for epidemiological studies and routine clinics.


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

    Yes, they look original


  • 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?

    Confounders are always there that can result in elevated levels of endothelial injury markers, uthors need to discuss that.


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

    95% CI need to be properly shown so as to identify outliers. It would be helpful if they can provide more support than correlation, since correlation does not always speak of causation.


  • 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?

    Trying to identify possible confoudners that can increase endothelial injury markers. Otherwise, methodology looks okay.


  • 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?

    Yes


  • Other Comments:

    Good paper, merits publication.

  • 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:

    As a practicing neurologist, I get to see patients in this category.

  • How to cite:  .CT Angiography and hsCRP evaluated in Type II Diabetes Complicated with Stroke. Anatomical and Biochemical Correlation[Review of the article 'CT Angiography and hsCRP evaluated in Type II Diabetes Complicated with Stroke. Anatomical and Biochemical Correlation ' by Tripathi K].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002523
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse