Submited on: 24 Dec 2010 06:46:05 AM GMT
Published on: 24 Dec 2010 10:54:10 AM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Due appreciation is to be given to the authors for their interest in documentation of this rare injury.
    However certain issues require attention.
    Background is not sufficiently referenced.  Avoid using generalized statements.
    Mention not made to the number of articles is available in literature or to the lack of such articles. 
    Language requires extensive review.  For instance: 'complained of' instead of 'complaints of'; 'At one year follow-up, there was no extensor lag and flexion was possible up to 110 degrees' instead of 'There was no extensor lag at one year and flexion was possible up to 110 degrees';  'has been stated' instead of 'had been stated', etc.
    Why six weeks of traction was required for minimal proximal migration.
    It is not possible to comment on reduction on a single view of radiograph.  Documentation of lateral radiograph is essential.  Though provided radiographic appears to be an oblique view.
    Though provided radiograph appears to show varus at the fracture.
    Intraoperative   varus laxity was due to ligament rupture or due to increased medial joint space from inadequate reduction.
    Mention is not made on the varus deformity at follow up or the shortening developing due to that needed.
    It is better to edit unnecessary details from the radiographs as seen in the pre OP radiograph.

  • Competing interests:
    Nil
  • 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:

    Extensive exposure to orthopaedic trauma

  • How to cite:  Saseendar S .Neglected Intra-articular Proximal Tibia Fracture : Good Functional Outcome After Operative Stabilisation[Review of the article 'Neglected Intra-articular Proximal Tibia Fracture : Good Functional Outcome After Operative Stabilisation ' by Kumar S].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00297
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Excellent article by the authors...It is highly informative..

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    Good

  • How to cite:  Tripathy S K.Neglected Intraarticular proximal tibia fracture: good functional outcome after operative stabilisation[Review of the article 'Neglected Intra-articular Proximal Tibia Fracture : Good Functional Outcome After Operative Stabilisation ' by Kumar S].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00283
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Neglected injuries pose an unique challenge in developing countries like India.. I appreciate the authors efforts in throwing light on neglected fracture of proximal tibia...

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am working at a level I trauma centre with a wide spectrum of injury patterns....

  • How to cite:  Tahasildar N .Neglected intra-articular fracture of proximal tibia[Review of the article 'Neglected Intra-articular Proximal Tibia Fracture : Good Functional Outcome After Operative Stabilisation ' by Kumar S].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00282
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse