Submited on: 09 May 2014 05:17:22 PM GMT
Published on: 10 May 2014 05:42:44 AM GMT
 
Review on Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis
Posted by Mr. Feng Yih Chai on 10 Jun 2014 02:05:02 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    The authors described an uncommon clinical entity and suggested excision as it treatment. Surgical excision may be appropriate in a young adult or teenage to avoid longterm morbidity of the lesion.


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

    No. There were multiple similiar case reports that suggest surgical excision as diagnostic and therapeutic approach published in the literature.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    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?

    Case series with long term outcome will be helpful.


  • 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:

    It is a well written report. Nonetheless, long term follow up and outcome is needed.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a qualified and a practising General Surgeon

  • How to cite:  Chai F . Review on Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis[Review of the article 'Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis- A rare clinical entity' by Sawant S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(6):WMCRW003065
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis
Posted by Dr. Murtaza A Calcuttawala on 09 Jun 2014 08:25:46 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Rare disease requiring excision.The authors have mentioned the different types of tumoral calcinosis,which is very noteworthy.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    Case series  would be more significant.A total of four or five cases would be more beneficial to reach to a etiological factor.


  • 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:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    General and laproscopic surgeon with 5 years of teaching experience.

  • How to cite:  Calcuttawala M A.Review of Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis[Review of the article 'Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis- A rare clinical entity' by Sawant S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(6):WMCRW003063
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis
Posted by Dr. Veena K Karanth on 06 Jun 2014 12:21:36 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Case presentation of a rare condition


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

    No


  • 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?

    No. For presenting such a paper, athorough workup to rule out secondary cause is essential


  • 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?

    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?

    Further investigations are required as mentioned earlier. Duration of follow up is to be mentioned.


  • 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:

    NA

  • 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:

    General Surgeon with over 20 years experience

  • How to cite:  Karanth V K.Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis[Review of the article 'Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis- A rare clinical entity' by Sawant S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(6):WMCRW003059
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Case report of idiopathic Calcinosis Cutis
Posted by Mr. Krishna Kumar Govindarajan on 18 May 2014 04:52:27 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Description of an uncommon clinical entity requiring excision


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

    NA


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

    NA


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

    NA


  • 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?

    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?

    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?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Krishna Kumar G, Chitra S. A Case of Primary Osteoma Cutis in an Infant. The Internet Journal of Pathology 2009 : 9; 2

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Yes

  • How to cite:  Govindarajan K .Case report of idiopathic Calcinosis Cutis[Review of the article 'Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis- A rare clinical entity' by Sawant S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003049
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The authors claim that surgical excision is to be recommended for an enlarging solitary mass following FNAC. In a young individual this approach is reasonable.


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

    No 


  • 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?

    An image of the ultrasound appearances would be helpful


  • 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 applicable


  • 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?

    A case series with long term followup may be helpful. 


  • 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:

    Good, well written report. Helpful for physicians dealing with young individuals seeing a growing lump. 

  • 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:

    Interventional Radiologist

  • How to cite:  Doss A X.Review on Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis- A rare clinical entity. WebmedCentral GENERAL SURGERY 2014;5(5):WMC004619[Review of the article 'Idiopathic Tumoral Calcinosis Cutis- A rare clinical entity' by Sawant S].WebmedCentral 2014;5(5):WMCRW003046
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse