Submited on: 06 Mar 2017 06:36:37 AM GMT
Published on: 06 Mar 2017 06:39:51 AM GMT

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

    The difficulty of ETV in post-infective HCP

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


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


  • 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?


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

    Procedure is well described and may be reproduced.

  • 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?


  • 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?

    The work is original because TBM is not very common in Europe.

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:


  • How to cite:  Lavano A .Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in tuberculous meningitis with hydrocephalus-An Indian experience[Review of the article 'Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in tuberculous meningitis with hydrocephalus-An Indian experience ' by Singh I].WebmedCentral 2017;8(3):WMCRW003361
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse