Submited on: 30 Apr 2013 09:33:53 PM GMT
Published on: 01 May 2013 09:01:56 AM GMT
 

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

    To present a rare case of a Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma.


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

    No. There are another similar cases.


  • 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. It is a case report.


  • 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?

    Not required is a basic case report


  • 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?

    In my first opinion I recommended to separate the photographs in order to give a more detailed objectivity. unfortunately, this recommensdation was not done.

    Also, add a more comprehensive review of the lietrature will add importance to the report.


  • 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, but it is interesting.


  • Other Comments:

    I suggest the authors followw my recommendations.

  • 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 am a 30 years experience Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologist.

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .An Opinion on Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma.[Review of the article 'Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma (WHO-type): Case Report ' by Pinto Jr D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002751
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    A rare entity with discussion of biological behavior and histological features.


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

    Not novel.


  • 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?

    Not applicable


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

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Follow up information is lacking. 


  • 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?

    Interesting case report of a rare entity.


  • Other Comments:

    English needs to be improved. The word injury which appears repeatedly in this case report, needs to be replaced by a better term such as "lesion".

  • 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 am a professor of Pathology in a medical and dental college in Pakistan, teach oral pathology to undergraduates and postgraduates and routinely practise diagnostic pathologist since last 18 years.

  • How to cite:  Kazi J I.A Rare Entity will be of Interest to Both Oral Pathologists and Faciomaxillary Surgeons.[Review of the article 'Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma (WHO-type): Case Report ' by Pinto Jr D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002739
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
It is OK
Posted by Prof. Muhammed Mubarak Arbab on 14 May 2013 11:55:56 AM GMT

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

    The main claim is to report a case of TJOF, WHO type and describe its clinicopathological characteristics and to compare these with historical features reported in literature.


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

    Not really, but the entity is relatively recently recognized and its clinicopathological spectrum is still being defined. This is a step in that direction. 


  • 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?

    To some extent. There are some points missing in the report. There is no mention of the radiography of the lesion, size of the tumor, type of treatment and follow-up period. These will complete the picture. 


  • 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?

    Not applicable


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

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Yes, as described before; many points are missing in the case report. 


  • Other Comments:

    English needs critical attention. 

  • 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 article pertains to my domain of expertise.

  • How to cite:  Arbab M .It is OK[Review of the article 'Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma (WHO-type): Case Report ' by Pinto Jr D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002729
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 report an unusual case of a Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma.


  • 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?

    Authors make interesting review on this neoplasm and present a case. No more is necessary.


  • 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?

    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?

    Yes. Student on Oral and maxillofacial Pathology must read it.


  • Other Comments:

    This manuscript will be more objective and comprehensible if authors separate individually all the photoraphic material. Under the present condictions. Not very much features can be seen.

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

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am an Oral and maxillofacial Pathologist

  • How to cite:  Ledesma-Montes C .On a case of a Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma[Review of the article 'Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma (WHO-type): Case Report ' by Pinto Jr D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002742
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A Rare Tumor
Posted by Prof. Valcinir Bedin on 01 May 2013 06:38:33 PM GMT

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

    The mais claim was to show a rare case of tumor and ths is very important to understand the disease.


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

    No, because it is a case report.


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

    Yes the claims ae properly placed in the context of the previous literature.


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

    Yes. The paper is pretty well documented and well presented with technical support.


  • 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?

    Yes. As a case report it contaisn everything that is needed.


  • 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 think the authors will save this case to join others around the world. This woul result in a bigger work.


  • 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, it is outstanding because it is well recorded, well written an very well presented.


  • Other Comments:

    I would like to congratulate the authors because I know it is not easy to make science in a country like Brazil.

  • 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 have a master degree and a doctorate in pathology and I have been teaching medicine for the last 30 years.

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .A Rare Tumor[Review of the article 'Trabecular Juvenile Ossifying Fibroma (WHO-type): Case Report ' by Pinto Jr D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002712
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse