What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The main claim is to report the mortality for patients submitted to aortic valve surgery alone or combined with CABG. The others are to compare morbidity. They have importance because they shown us the results of a cardiac team
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
No. There are already some papers bringing these comparision.
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?
No protocol and an error, calling these report a prospective and retrospective study. It should be one or the other.
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes it does
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 these paper viewing in its entire contest is good enough
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. It is just a data report with nothing new, despite the good results
Other Comments:
I think it should go through a revision of English way of writing and also of the references which are away from the Vancouver
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:
Associated Professor
How to cite: Almeida R M. Aortic Valve Surgery: Associated or not with CABG[Review of the article 'Aortic Valve Surgery: Results of Aortic Valve Surgery Combined or not with CABG Surgery ' by Refatllari A].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002737
The main claim is to report the mortality for patients submitted to aortic valve surgery alone or combined with CABG. The others are to compare morbidity. They have importance because they shown us the results of a cardiac team
No. There are already some papers bringing these comparision.
Yes
Yes
No protocol and an error, calling these report a prospective and retrospective study. It should be one or the other.
Yes it does
I think these paper viewing in its entire contest is good enough
No. It is just a data report with nothing new, despite the good results
I think it should go through a revision of English way of writing and also of the references which are away from the Vancouver
None
No
No
None
Associated Professor