Submited on: 23 Oct 2013 12:35:10 AM GMT
Published on: 23 Oct 2013 10:34:12 AM GMT

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

    This paper is different from usual papers in the sense that the author was invited as one on the 10 principal investigators by the royal college and the National collaborating Centre for mental health where he submitted over 100comments and how convenienetly NCCMH didnt include them and highlights that even the writers of the review while drafting were aware of how inadequare their researdch was on which they based theiir conclusions It just emphasized that they were determined to get what they wanted- some points it is based on wrong terms of reference investigating the medical procedure abortionshould determine first necessity,indications,benefits,not harms,it doesnt empirically define definitions eg of unwanted,unintended,mental illness,obvious biases-inclusion and rating of studies,poor studies of authors like moore 2000 included while good ones discvarded ,uses caregorizing values which can onluy be used as a continuum, sweeping generalizations of large populations ittespective of state or country,ignores wide range of damaging effects that have been authentically reported to occur due to abortion eg suicide deliberately ,it nisuses rates of prevalence ,it may acknowledge some criticism but discounts rhem with beyonfd our mandate /we are using the best available evidence whicch the author found blatantly untrue

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

    This is different from a publication in the sense that this is the criticism of the draft of the Royal college of Psychiatry and NCCMH who lay guidelines for pdychiatrists to practice evidence based medicine and sease and desist to practice whatever is not scientific and evidence based but is highlighting the double standards of the same society who very courteiusly answer him after his hardwork and not inckluding his comments in conclusions and including some most nonscientfic papers in the conclusions and his pain is more highlighted more thaan the sarcasm with him watching loterally murder of correct practice.yea i have previously reviewed the authors article on Factors that determine Adolescent pregnancy published on 31st jan 2013 where i had enough articles to know the author has been working on this field since 1989 if not earlier although i suggested a change in name of title. The author has suggested which all were genuine suggestions like that of Reardon DC,Ferguson D,Coleman PK but although Drs Coleman and Rearden 1b had done a good job in criticizing the selection and grading of papers ,selection had less to do with the papers findings/credibility than it did withpanels bias

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


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


  • 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?


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


  • 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?

    No-it is a very well written review of the deficirncies in the draft made for induced abortions and that pshychological /mental and physical health of mother and child where the child to be born is not considerefd as far as prof Ney IS rederring to and so mucg guilt folliws after induced abirtions and psycjhological changes folloewing induced abortion he highlights and suicide rates completely ignored although death is a big variable which they have conveniently acknowledged but asked to ignore

  • 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?

    BASICALLY THIS IS NOT A PAPER BUT A CRITIQUE OF THE DRAFT OF THE NCCMH odf the ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRY BUT YES IT IS VERY WELL WRITTEN and it highlights every little deficiency and right from statistical measures to scientific duplicity being used like conflict in interest regarding financial measures is not clearly disclosed and studies from pubmed say 8909 selected of that 2% used and decided any study with less than 50%followup would be rejected yet major Bwith

  • Other Comments:

    The author very nicely highlights rhat in the review by NCCMH the definition of mental illness is repeatedly avoided and refers to that is there any woman who at some time in life doesnt in life doesnt have mental problems and this they try to avoid a problem only to make another far worse and he emphasozes use of DSMIVR criteria makes worse as varies with country ,economic status ,psychiatric clinic and hence standardixzation etc necssary and definition of who has mental problem essential

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Presented inIBRO world congress on neurology role of dysregulation of ANS vs HPA in drug induced obesity inAustralia held in 2007 12-17th july and confused hypothalamus a cause of worldwide obesity in world congress on gyne endicrinology in flirence italy in 2005.

  • How to cite:  Kaur K K.Review on A Common Sense Scientific Critique of the NCCMH and Royal College of Psychiatry Review [Review of the article 'A Common Sense Scientific Critique of the NCCMH and Royal College of Psychiatry Review ' by Ney P].WebmedCentral 2013;4(10):WMCRW002880
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse