Submited on: 12 Dec 2015 01:41:06 PM GMT
Published on: 14 Dec 2015 05:59:38 AM GMT
 
Sclerosing mesenteritis presenting with abdominal mass: Case Report
Posted by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed on 11 Jan 2016 02:07:25 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Main clims were the rare case and difficult to diagnose

    Other cases already reported in literature and having diagnositic problem due to rare nature of the disease.


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

    Its not a rare condition or having some odd oresentation. Main issue is that surgeons have failed to diagnose but there is no atypical presentation of the pathology.


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

    Not placed properly in context of literature.


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

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    Not applicable


  • 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?

    I dont think that this paper is worth presentation in seminar


  • Other Comments:

    Its not a rare disese and author has written too long introduction and too short discussion. historic background can be added in introduction and author shoud have emphasis more on the diagnisitic aspect that these pathologies can not be missed by clinicians.

    conclusion is not written properly and it contains all details given in intro or discussion.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    Editir of 2 medical journals and having more than 80 research papers published

  • How to cite:  Ahmed I .Sclerosing mesenteritis presenting with abdominal mass: Case Report[Review of the article 'Sclerosing mesenteritis presenting with abdominal mass: Case Report ' by Othman M].WebmedCentral 2016;7(1):WMCRW003267
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Reviewer Comments
Posted by Dr. Fazl Q Parray on 11 Jan 2016 10:06:29 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    This is a very rare presentation and keeping in view the lot many diagnostic dilemmas ,it is a very inportant paper


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

    Yes the claims are novel;only weakness is that introductory part should be short and discussion part should be elaborate


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

    Yes they are


  • 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?

    Yes, There is a scope of making it better by addition of intraoperative figs and Histopathological micropics


  • 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 it is

     


  • Other Comments:

    Nicely written paper supported with good evedence;makes us wiser about a rare presentation

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • 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:

    have good number of case reports to my credit in international journals

  • How to cite:  Parray F Q.Reviewer Comments[Review of the article 'Sclerosing mesenteritis presenting with abdominal mass: Case Report ' by Othman M].WebmedCentral 2016;7(1):WMCRW003266
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse