Submited on: 03 Apr 2011 07:01:41 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Apr 2011 04:43:16 PM GMT
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    A very informative and interesting review. Critical appraisal of RCT's makes this review a strong one. The format and grammar of this review is excellent. Explanation of RDS and the mechanism of ACS is very good. This review has proven to be mind stimulating. Well done! 

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    Knowledge seeker :D

  • How to cite:  Amer Z .A Literature Review on Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Prevent Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome [Review of the article 'A Literature Review on Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Prevent Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00698
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    good article showing benefits and harms of multiple doses of antenatal corticosteroids of different RCTS

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • 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:

    WE ARE USING ONLY SINGLE COURSE OF BETHAMETHASONE 

  • How to cite:  Aseeja V .A Literature Review on Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Prevent Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome [Review of the article 'A Literature Review on Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Prevent Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00688
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This MS needs plenty of revisions. The Abstract may be rewritten concising the text using proper english and grammar which appears to be poor. The Introduction is too lengthy and need to be concised. The results are a summary of only 4 papers and I presume that the title does not suit to the MS. It must be written as a metanalysis intead of a literature review. A seperate discussion is not needed for a review and the conclusions be properly written. RDS is not the focus of the MS at many places. The Table numbers 1,2,3,5,6,7 may be deleted as they are not adding to our understanding of the text.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • 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:

    Written a few reviews

  • How to cite:  Purohit G N.A Literature Review on Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Prevent Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome[Review of the article 'A Literature Review on Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids to Prevent Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00687
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse