Submited on: 28 Jun 2013 09:41:54 AM GMT
Published on: 28 Jun 2013 09:53:25 AM GMT
 

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

    An unsual diagnosis for a swelling in the temporal region. Its good to keep this differential in mind when we deal with swellings of the head and neck region.


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

    Yes, they are.


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

    Relevant articles are cited.


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

    Yes, they do.


  • 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?

    Not relevant.


  • 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 pape ris relevant, since this condition should be kept in mind.


  • Other Comments:

    Evaluation of any swelling of the head and neck region should include MRI along with CT scan, if the facilities are available, which could have given a clue to the diagnosis. MRI could have helped in clinching the diagnosis, before excision. However in places with limited resources, one should certainlyu keep this diagnosis in mind.

  • 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:

    Have adequate experience in treating patients with head and neck swellings.

  • How to cite:  Mathew J .Cysticercosis of Temporalis Muscle: A Histological Surprise[Review of the article 'Cysticercosis of Temporalis Muscle: A Histological Surprise ' by Thomas J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002808
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 report of musculoskeletal cysticercosis involving temporalis muscle.  Preoperative diagnosis of this condition is not possible because of its rarity and it is a histological surprise diagnosis.  According to this article the final diagnosis can be made only after performing histopathologica examination.


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

    No claims are being made.  It is a rare case report


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

    No claims made.  More over the case report is substantiated by adequate number of references


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

    Not relevant


  • 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 relevant


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

    Not relevant


  • 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?

    Not relevant


  • 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 an interesting case report which can be included during lectures.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • 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:

    Yes I have suitable experience

  • How to cite:  Thiagarajan B .Cysticercosis of temporalis muscle a histological surprise[Review of the article 'Cysticercosis of Temporalis Muscle: A Histological Surprise ' by Thomas J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002805
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse