Submited on: 03 Oct 2012 08:45:10 PM GMT
Published on: 04 Oct 2012 07:34:49 PM GMT
 

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

    The article claims the extracts from the four plants in the paper have antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties comparable to the of indomycin. 


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

    A article published in 2011 by Sahil Talwar et. al. reported the anti-inflammatory properties of Terminalia paniculata bark. 


  • 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?

    The claim that the anti-inflammatory activity of the plant extracs are comparable to indomycin is misleading. According to the results published by this report, the percent edema inhibition of most the the methanolic extract were half that of indomycin, at 40 times the relative dosage. 


  • 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?

    N/A


  • 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?

    The paper could be improved my comparing the adverse side effects of the plant extracts to that of current approved drugs. 


  • 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, the results presented does not show the plant extracts having any superiority over the current approved antimicrobial or anti-inflammatory medicine. Furthermore, the report also gives no suggestion, supporte by it results, of how plant extracts can be used to improve microbial or inflammatory treamtent. 


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    .

  • How to cite:  Watkis C .Review: Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Activities of Bark of Four Plant Species from Indian Origin[Review of the article 'Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Activities of Bark of Four Plant Species from Indian Origin ' by Sharma V].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003333
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Antimicrobial and antiinflammatory activities of some plant extarcts of plant origin


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

    Yes, with respect to the extacts used.


  • 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?

    To be confirmed by further by various invitro/invivo models


  • 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?

    Sufficient work has been done


  • 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 is not outstanding.


  • Other Comments:

    Name of plants and microorganisms should in italic. mark is printed in some places, for eg. page 2 and 5. this is to deleted. Antiinflammatory activity was done on Rat and as well as mice. however, only one table was made for the same. It is not clear the table is for rat or mice. this is to clarified by the author. page 8 table 2. the numbering may be deleted. Ruthenium red test is for olny mucilages, hence the author should delete the word, "gums" page 11 gram ve may be written as Gram +ve

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    NA

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Activities of Bark of Four Plant Species from Indian Origin[Review of the article 'Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Activities of Bark of Four Plant Species from Indian Origin ' by Sharma V].WebmedCentral 2016;3(10):WMCRW002305
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse