Submited on: 29 Aug 2011 06:37:53 AM GMT
Published on: 29 Aug 2011 01:46:37 PM GMT
 

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

    The main aim of this abstract is to determine the rate of DVT in their hospital and to identify the various factors associated with it.


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

    Not novel. In fact, the risk factors of DVT have been well-studied and in fact, pre-test probability has been derived - such as the Well's score. It is nothing new.


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

    Not able to assess.


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

    Not sure yet. Depending on what the full paper says.


  • 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 able to assess.


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

    Probably valid.


  • 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 able to aseess. Awaiting full paper.


  • 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?

    Not able to assess.


  • Other Comments:

    I suggest that the authors extend further this research into looking at the validity of the various clinical prediction rules that have been derived and see if these rules are applicable in their settings.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    Emergency medicine lecturer and researcher.

  • How to cite:  Chew K .Something More than Merely Identifying the Risk Factors for DVT[Review of the article 'DVT In ICU: Fequency and Risk Factors ' by Pasqualucci A].WebmedCentral 2011;3(7):WMCRW002130
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
This paper could be the starting point
Posted by Dr. Michelangelo Bortolin on 09 Feb 2012 10:33:34 AM 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? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    This paper is an abstract and could be the starting point of an original article.

     

     

    Weaknesses

    Study design and methodology:

    - there is the  exclusion of DVT at the admission of the patient in the ICU (day 0) ?

    - describe demographic, clinical data and risk factors (obesity, cancer, previous DVT, etc) of the patients

    - which is the criteria for the selection of the patients; in particular which are the patients that have performed the second ultrasound (US)?

    - identify the risk factors in the 2 groups: patients in therapy with enoxaparin and, patients that have used antithrombotic stockings. In first reading, it is interesting observe that DVT seems higher in patient that used stockings (haemorragic stroke, ischemic stroke)

    - could be interesting evaluate if there is a statistical difference between DVT and therapy (enoxoparin vs stockings) and therefore correlation with the risk factors

    I suggest, to revise the methodology, the website

    http://strobe-statement.org/

     

    Afetr a revision of the methodology the results and the conclusions should be improved

  • 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:

    Emergency Medicine

  • How to cite:  Bortolin M .This paper could be the starting point[Review of the article 'DVT In ICU: Fequency and Risk Factors ' by Pasqualucci A].WebmedCentral 2011;3(2):WMCRW001473
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
DVT In ICU: Fequency and Risk Factors
Posted by Dr. Francisco Epelde on 24 Oct 2011 11:51:11 AM 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? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    It´s an abstract with a very low number of patients. There are not reference to biological diagnosis (d-dimer).

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    It´s an abastract not exactly an article.

  • How to cite:  Epelde F .DVT In ICU: Fequency and Risk Factors [Review of the article 'DVT In ICU: Fequency and Risk Factors ' by Pasqualucci A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW001041
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? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The manuscript is far from complete. In the actual form, it is an abstract without any references. Any article related to the abstract could not be found. Further, spelling needs a huge improvement. At this moment the abstract contains a lot of "?" which should be omitted.

    In the introductory part, some of the current literature should be named including the highly variable incidence of DVT in critically ill patients. Furthermore, is should be named how many ICU's participated in the study and where the centrum performing the study is situated geographically to allow the international reader to find it in the text beside the affiliation of the authors. More general information should be given.

    The methods need clarification regarding if the evaluated patients were all ICU patients during the period, randomly selected or to the authors discretion. It should be mentioned how extensive ultrasound examination was performed. A second ultrasound was performed in selected patients after 8 days. The number of these patients and the selection criteria should be named. The same applies to the different groups of patients treated with enoxaparin and the ones receiving physical prophylaxis only. As risc factors were identified, the statistical method for analysis should be named. The follow up excluding PE (see "results") should be mentioned.

    Regarding the result part, the number of patients presenting with DVT on day 8 but not day 4 should be named here but not only in the conclusion (if there at all). The past pharmacology therapy named in the results should be clarified as procoagulant therapy might facilitate the progress of thrombosis. Furthermore, the risc factors seem very randomly selected, and full original data (numbers, underlying diagnosis, gender, age etc) for the respective patients should be presented in appropriate form.  

    The number of patients presented in the study is relatively low, making any conclusion but the high incidence of DVT among (un-)selected (?) ICU patients very doubtful.

    The relatively high incidence of DVT in the study needs explanation, as several studies reported lower values in the local contexts (see references below). Were Anti-factor X levels or trombelastograms performed in the patients during determination of the individual dose?

    I recommend the authors to include a discussion of the actual literature beside the general improvements namned above. Some references of interest might be:

    J Neurosurg. 2009 May;110(5):1010-4.

    J Trauma. 2010 Apr;68(4):874-80.

    J Trauma. 2009 Jun;66(6):1509-15; discussion 1515-7.

    Asian J Surg. 2009 Apr;32(2):85-8.

    Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2010 Oct;16(5):584-90. Epub 2009 Oct 22.

    J Crit Care. 2005 Dec;20(4):341-7.

    J Crit Care. 2005 Dec;20(4):334-40.

    Chest. 2003 Dec;124(6 Suppl):357S-363S.

     

    Some conclusion should be made on the results found, in the current presentation only results are named. What do the authors conclude from the data they presented?

     

    Overall, the study might be of general interest for intensivists, but the manuscript needs major improvements and needs to be extended to at least a short report form including references, extended introduction, refined methods, revised and extended presentation of the results, critical discussion and a final conclusion..

  • 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:

    Senior emergency physician with several published articles in the field of pulmonary embolism and DVT.

  • How to cite:  Schilling U .The data might be interesting, however.....[Review of the article 'DVT In ICU: Fequency and Risk Factors ' by Pasqualucci A].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00920
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse