Submited on: 13 Aug 2013 07:32:27 AM GMT
Published on: 13 Aug 2013 08:10:41 AM GMT
 
Review manuscript:
Posted by Dr. Pietro Scicchitano on 19 Aug 2013 10:52:56 AM GMT

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

    The association between TakoTsubo syndrome and short PR at the ECG is an important issue. This case report will open the way to further structured trials able to demonstrated the association.


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

    Yes, the claim is novel because this association is under-evaluated by physicians and deserves more attention. This case will be able to enforce the attention of worldwide physicians to this association.


  • 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?

    Yes


  • 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, because it is not a randomized controlled trial but rather a case report.


  • 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?

    No one.


  • 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, because it would constituate the start for further researches within this still unknown cardiological field.


  • Other Comments:

    Bari, August, 19th, 2013

     

     

     

    Title: “A Broken Heart Syndrome in an Electrocardiogram with a short PR-Interval”.

     

    Dear Editor,

    We have read through the manuscript and we think that the manuscript seems good as it stands. Further structured studies are needed in order to confirm or not such an association. This means that the case report is good as it stands and does not need any other revisions. It is important because it will open the way to future trials that will be able to study this association on a more scientific view.

  • Competing interests:
    none to declare
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a researcher in cardiological fields and author of many international researches.

  • How to cite:  Scicchitano P .Review manuscript:[Review of the article 'A Broken Heart Syndrome in an Electrocardiogram with a short PR-Interval ' by Breijo F].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002845
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Hearty congratulations
Posted by Dr. Douglas Vreymark on 15 Aug 2013 06:34:36 AM GMT

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

    I have read many clinical works of Prof. Breijo-Marquez and your professional career seems me excelent.


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

    Yes. 


  • 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?

    Absolutely Yes.


  • 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?

    None


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

    Absolutely 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?

    None.


  • 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. Would be great!


  • Other Comments:

    I have read many clinical works of Prof. Breijo-Marquez and your professional career seems me excelent , . A superb presentation on a little known issue yet. My hearty congratulations.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have read many clinical works of Prof. Breijo-Marquez and your professional career seems me excelent , . A superb presentation on a little known issue yet. My hearty congratulations.

  • How to cite:  Vreymark D .Hearty congratulations[Review of the article 'A Broken Heart Syndrome in an Electrocardiogram with a short PR-Interval ' by Breijo F].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002839
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Rare association of an uncommon disorder
Posted by Dr. Gopal C Ghosh on 13 Aug 2013 02:51:49 PM GMT

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

    Broken heart syndrome is an idiopathic disorder of heart and still it is now increasingly diagnosed throughout the world. So author have tried to idenfy a rare association between Broken heart syndrome and short PR interval.


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

    Yes


  • 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?

    Yes


  • 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 relevant


  • 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?

    No


  • 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


  • Other Comments:

    Good article and an important topic for research in the present situation. Broken heart syndrome is related with the stress, increased catecholamines in blood, sympathetic stimulation. Author have identified some association between the disorder and short PR interval. So we need larger study to prove or disprove the association. 

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    M.D.(MEDICINE)

  • How to cite:  Ghosh G C.Rare association of an uncommon disorder[Review of the article 'A Broken Heart Syndrome in an Electrocardiogram with a short PR-Interval ' by Breijo F].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002835
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse