Submited on: 03 Aug 2013 04:26:09 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Aug 2013 04:35:40 AM GMT
 

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

    Main claim of the paper is an important issue to be determined. It claims to have identified a better comparative and low-cost efective method to assay salivary biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease. The study to determine this is very important.


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

    This claim is not novel. Cited references use established method to assay salivary biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease along with other techniques.


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

    The claim is not new. Previous literature and study exists in this area. However, it may be presented as a supportive data and is not very conclusive at the level of significance.


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

    Results support the claim. However, it is not measurable, because the study lacks appropriate controls and does not describe precision of the kits used in assay.


  • 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?

    A detail protocol has not been provided which may be major issue if some other researchers want this to replicate.


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

    No detail methodology has been described. Hence it may be an issue to determine its validity.


  • 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?

    Few other techniques could have been compared with the methods used in this manuscript to compare, and conclude the results of the study.


  • 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?

    Paper is not an unstanding one. However, the problem addressed is important. 


  • Other Comments:

    N/A.

  • 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:

    Experience in neuroscience and immunology.

  • How to cite:  Sarkar P K.Salivary biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: Search for a better assay techniques[Review of the article 'Salivary -42, IGF-I, IGF-II, Alpha Amylase, IL-1, and TNF-alpha in Alzheimer's Disease: A Useful Diagnostic Tool ' by Anand S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002838
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Salivary biomarkers
Posted by Dr. Joseph M Antony on 13 Aug 2013 01:41:54 PM GMT

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

    the main thrust of the paper is that saliva contains biomarkers that can distinguish Alzheimers.


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

    These claims are not novel as several studies have shown the same. Ref #14, 15


  • 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?

    While the study shows modest differences in several biomarkers but a significant difference in the level of only TNF and IL-1beta, it begs the question of how these biomarkers can be specific to Alzheimers. these 2 cytokines are general inflammatory markers and cannot be attributed to the development of Alzheimers. 


  • 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?

    Not satisfactory.


  • 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 trouble with this paper is that the controls are inappropriate. If the 2 biomarkers that showed differences in the 2 populations studied here are general inflammatory markers (TNF and IL-1beta), the onus is on the authors to show how specific these biomarkers are. The study should be repeated with saliva samples from patients with HIV-dementia or stroke or anyother neurological condition that does lie in the Alzheimer's spectrum of diseases.


  • 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.


  • Other Comments:

    No.

  • 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 published in the area of neuroinflammation to review this article.

  • How to cite:  Antony J M.Salivary biomarkers[Review of the article 'Salivary -42, IGF-I, IGF-II, Alpha Amylase, IL-1, and TNF-alpha in Alzheimer's Disease: A Useful Diagnostic Tool ' by Anand S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002834
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse