-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
The main claims are
1.Serum CRP measurements help in diagnosis of Neonatal sepsis
2. It helps to prognosticate the timely and effective management
3. It is fast and has good sensitivity and specificity
-
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?
The statstical method should be mentioned
-
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?
More subjects should have been included. The comparative details with culture positive should have been mentioned.
-
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:
The article is well written but there are certain points to be pondered upon
1. The initial measurement of CRP should have been repeated after 24hrs to look for rise of fall.
2. the correlation between blood culture and CRP should have been mentioned
3. Among the neonates who expired what was reason
4. There was no mention of early onset sepsis vs late onset sepsis and CRP values -
Competing interests:
0
-
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:
Been working in Neonatal unit of Tertiary care hospital.
- How to cite: Sinha R .Evaluation of serum C reactive protein in diagnosis and prognosis of Neonatal Septicemia[Review of the article 'Evaluation Of Serum C-reactive Protein In Diagnosis And Prognosis Of Neonatal Septicemia ' by Kumar B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002817
-
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
CRP serum values are useful predictor of diagnosis and prognosis of N sepsis.
-
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?
group comparison
-
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?
The hallmark of diagnosis of N Sepsis is positive blood culture. So 16 culture positive (16 blood + 6 others) group is to be compared with other 34 in suspected cases and with 25 normal controls . One may form blood and urine cultures together as a group or a group of all positive culture - 22 in no. But culture positive is to be compared with culture negative and controls.
Illustr 4, 5 and 9 are good where survivors vs non -survivors; cured with/ without complicatiobns; sepsis vs no sepsis; are compared.
-
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:
It is a good work and can be carried further by, separating the man from the boys so to speak, ie culture + vs neg and controls OR sick vs expired vs controls.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Response Letter to editor IJP 2006.
-
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
in practice of neonatology since 2000 and pediatrics since 1981
- How to cite: Gohil J R.CRP Neonatal Sepsis[Review of the article 'Evaluation Of Serum C-reactive Protein In Diagnosis And Prognosis Of Neonatal Septicemia ' by Kumar B].WebmedCentral 2013;4(7):WMCRW002812
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
presents the role in the diagnosis and early treatment of CRP in neo-nates with sever infection emphasize the accuracy in the follow-up of treated infection in ne-nates
No
Yes
Yes
The protocol was respected
Yes, mainly the technique for CRP measurement and interpetation was detailed. The urine sampling is not reliable: mid-stream in neo-nates is a difficult procedure and time-consuming a better way would be bladder catherterisation
There are not enough data on the diagnosis of septicemia: only cultures are described but the location of infection is not well defined in order to respect the definition of a septicemia and not bacteriemia
Yes
Tables 3,5 and 9 should have a better comment
None
No
No
None
I am senior in pediatrics, lecturer at the University fo Medicine and Pharmacy