Submited on: 06 Feb 2014 10:03:36 PM GMT
Published on: 07 Feb 2014 11:22:44 AM GMT
 
A rare cause of melanonychia
Posted by Prof. Meral Guzey on 27 Mar 2014 09:57:17 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    This is a case report for a 66 year old man with black coloration on the first toe nails on both feet. This is a very important topic.


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

    Yes, this specific condition is novel, although melanonychia is widely studied. The patient had pancreatic adenocarcinoma stage 4, with multiple liver metastases. He received gemcitabine and erlotinib, followed by capecitabine, further he was offered a third line of chemotherapy


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

    They have four well selected references.


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

    They have a discussion section and figures. They need more cases with the same problem to make the paper more professional. We support the idea of early publishing in webmedcentral. I believe that this study can be improved by time. The topic is properly selected and discussed with the audience.


  • 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?

    This is a case report.


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

    NA


  • 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 cases with the same problem will improve the study, which will provide us statistical analysis.

    There are some minor spelling errors. i.e., last paragraph for discussion "drugs involved".


  • 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?

    It can be outstanding, only it needs more scientific studies.


  • Other Comments:

    I liked this short piece of work, and encourage the author to continue to work on it.

  • 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:

    Cancer research- Experience above 10 years.

  • How to cite:  Guzey M .A rare cause of melanonychia[Review of the article 'A rare cause of melanonychia ' by Una Cidon E].WebmedCentral 2014;5(3):WMCRW003023
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A rare cause of melanonychia
Posted by Dr. Ritesh Agrawal on 27 Feb 2014 06:54:07 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Oxaliplatin is a new cause of melanonychia

     

    Not significant


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

    Not novel

     

    Chemotherapy agents are known to cause melanonychia


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

    No

     

     


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

    No

     

    There is no objective evidence that patient actually had melanonychia. There was no study done on nails proving it was melanin deposition and nothing else.


  • 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?

    Not needed


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

    No


  • 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?

    Paper is badly written and needs to be rewritten completely with major corrections


  • 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:

    Paper is not worthy for publication.

     

    Its just an observation and that too poorly framed without objective evidence.

  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Agrawal R .A rare cause of melanonychia[Review of the article 'A rare cause of melanonychia ' by Una Cidon E].WebmedCentral 2014;5(2):WMCRW003011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Melanonychia
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 13 Feb 2014 03:22:30 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The aim of the author in this article is to present a case of a 66 year-old man with melanonychia.


  • 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?

    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?

    No


  • 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- this would be a great seminar in a medical school.


  • Other Comments:

    Melanonychia is rare and is thought to be derived from a damage in the nail bed or matrix, focal stimulation of nail-matrix melanocytes and photosensitization.  The author states that diagnosing melanonychia is usually difficult.  The author provides a possible cause for the melanonychia in the case reported.

  • 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:

    Clinical associate professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.Melanonychia[Review of the article 'A rare cause of melanonychia ' by Una Cidon E].WebmedCentral 2014;5(2):WMCRW002975
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse