Submited on: 16 Apr 2013 10:36:59 PM GMT
Published on: 17 Apr 2013 05:52:16 AM GMT
 
Cysticlean and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection
Posted by Prof. Meral Guzey on 25 May 2013 03:41:16 PM GMT

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

    This paper compare the available cranberry extracts in the market, and comes up with the priority of cysticlean with the explanatory reasons.

     

    The strength of this article is that it is discussing the drawbacks in the topics as well as positive points.

     

    Example:

     

    Page 5 of 22, First Paragraph (first column, left side). It mentions about unknown mechanism of cranberry juice and the increase of urine salcylate.

     

    Page 6 of 22, 4th. Last Paragraph (first column, left side). It mentions about lack of official method for PACs quantification.


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

    The idea of using cranberry was first published at mid-nineties. The comparison of different cranberry concentrates, and the selected compounds are novel.

    1. Walker EB, Barney DP, Mickelsen JN, Walton RJ, and Mickelsen RA. (1997). Cranberry concentrate: UTI prophylaxis. J Fam Pract. 45(2):167-8.
    2. Reid G. (1999). Potential preventive strategies and therapies in urinary tract infection.
    World J Urol. 1(6):359-63.


  • 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?

    This is a review article.


  • 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 review article.


  • 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?

    This is a good study.


  • Other Comments:

    Format:

     

    1. Graphs-It seems like bars in the graphs are statistically significant (p

    2. Reference List: There are inconsistencies,please see 4, 85, 87. Typo-46,80.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Genito-urologic cancers

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Genito-urologic cancers

  • How to cite:  Guzey M .Cysticlean and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection[Review of the article 'Cysticlean and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection ' by Othman M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002748
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    To study use of cysticlean in recurrent urinary tract infection.


  • 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?

    Not sure


  • 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?

    I would like to mention few suggestions as below-

    1) If this is a study then author should only mention PAC [generic] & not cysticlean[brand name]

    2) What is the dose schedule & details ?

    3) How long should one continue this drug?

    4) What are the side effects & limitations of it?

    5) Is it safe in pregnancy as majority of patients are also pregnant females

    6) Too much information is put in this paper without any mention about above points

    7) Again the conclusion is not clear.

    8) There is no mention what & how long primary urinary antibiotic was given besides PAC as author is mentioning recurrent UTI. 


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

    this is the commonest surgical entity encountered by all surgeons where many options play crucial role so as to formulate ideal drug in urinary infection.

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.Cysticlean & recurrent urinary tract infection[Review of the article 'Cysticlean and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection ' by Othman M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002694
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Cysticlean & recurrent UTI
Posted by Mr. Krishna Kumar Govindarajan on 18 Apr 2013 09:26:08 AM GMT

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

    Cysticlean reduces UTI recurrences.


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

    No


  • 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?

    The protocol is not clear.


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

    Its difficult to say whether this is a review article or a case control study.


  • 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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    The author needs an appreciation for the write up. But unfortunately, its unclear whether its a review of papers on similar subject or a original research article. There is so much data and literature included that its difficult to grasp the subject. Precision editing may help to improve the relevance of the article.

  • 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:

    UTI is a day to day clinical problem seen at our outpatient & inpatient zones. On an average, about 40-60 children with suspected UTI are managed at our Hospital in a week.

  • How to cite:  Govindarajan K .Cysticlean & recurrent UTI[Review of the article 'Cysticlean and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection ' by Othman M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(4):WMCRW002688
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse