Home » Reviews
Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment
By Dr. Veena K Karanth , Dr. Ramchandra L , Dr. Ramkumar J
Submited on: 26 Dec 2013 04:48:26 AM GMT
Published on: 26 Dec 2013 05:16:35 AM GMT
 
Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment
Posted by Dr. Aly Saber on 27 Jan 2014 05:59:22 PM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

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

    This paper represented a rare type of trauma with important view in  clinical aspect.


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

    Not  novel but this paper adds to the few numbers of published data.


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

    This paper presented a short way for managing this type of rare injury.


  • 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?

    No


  • 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?

    I think that the treating team did their best.


  • 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:

    Both testes are embedded within the thighs. What about the testicular function thereafter?

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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 have some experience in surgery of inguinoscrotal region and published the following papers:\\n1- Aly Saber. New minimally invasive hydrocelectomy. Urology. 2011 Feb;77(2):487-90\\n2-Saber A. Reply by the author New minimally invasive hydrocelectomy.. Urology 2011 Aug;78(2):485.\\n3-Saber A. Editorial comment: Sclerotherapy of hydroceles and spermatoceles with alcohol: results and effects on the semen analysis. Int Braz J Urol. 2011 May-Jun;37(3):307-12; discussion 312-3.\\n4- Aly Saber, Goda M Ellabban, Mohammad A Gad and Karam Elsayem. Open preperitoneal versus anterior approach for recurrent inguinal hernia: a randomized study. BMC Surgery 2012, 12:22 doi:10.1186/1471-2482-12-22

  • How to cite:  Saber A .Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment[Review of the article 'Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment ' by J R].WebmedCentral 2014;5(1):WMCRW002922
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment
Posted by Prof. Pradeep P Sharma on 26 Jan 2014 05:08:22 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    It is a review article and satisifies the claims


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

    Yes, It is 


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

    Yes, It is. 


  • 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?

    There is no deviation as it is a review article


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

    There is no analysis of data involved as it is a review article


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    Fairly  good review article


  • Other Comments:

    It is a fialry good review article

  • 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 do have

  • How to cite:  Sharma P P.Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment[Review of the article 'Review of degloving injury of scrotum and penis and presenting a case of complete degloving injury with single stage treatment ' by J R].WebmedCentral 2014;5(1):WMCRW002920
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.