Submited on: 19 Dec 2013 08:26:23 AM GMT
Published on: 19 Dec 2013 09:03:51 AM GMT
 

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

    The authors describes the clinical profile of patients with acute respiratory infection in a tertiary care center. The data helps clinician to manage patients admitted with ARI.


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

    The data is novel with respect to recent H1N1 outbreak in India. However, similar cases has already reported.


  • 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 author's included only H1N1 caese in the viral group. The cases of undetermined etiology may include other viral diseases. So the classification may be a misnomer.


  • 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?

    The author's explained the data well. 


  • 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?

    A large group including more diverse pathogens will draw meaningful conclusions.


  • 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 paper is useful for clinicians working in tertiary care.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • 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:

    Doing research in infectious diseases

  • How to cite:  Ds Nair A .Profile of Acute Respiratory Infection among adult patients during H1N1 outbreak in a tertiary care centre in Pune[Review of the article 'Profile of Acute Respiratory Infection among adult patients during H1N1 outbreak in a tertiary care centre in Pune ' by Baheti A].WebmedCentral 2014;5(1):WMCRW002916
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    In this article, the authors retrospectively studied the profile of acute respiratory infection in adults regarding the inflectional causes, clinical manifestations,  laboratory evaluations, SOFA score, duration of symptoms prior to admission, and mortality rate during the outbreak of H1N1 in Pune. Because of high mortality of acute respiratory infection during outbreaks of some type of inflectional causes, this paper is very invaluable.


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

    No, this is not novel. As mentioned in this paper, similar studies have been done by others with about similar results.


  • 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?

    The method of case selection has not been stated in this study. In addition, similar studies can include children.


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

    The method of case selection has not been stated in this study. The inclusion ad exclusion criteria could be summarized in tables.


  • 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 method of case selection has not been stated in this study. The inclusion ad exclusion criteria could be summarized in tables.


  • 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:

    This paper was very interesting.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    In practice, I have some experiences.

  • How to cite:  Bagherani N .Profile of Acute Respiratory Infection among adult patients during H1N1 outbreak in a tertiary care centre in Pune[Review of the article 'Profile of Acute Respiratory Infection among adult patients during H1N1 outbreak in a tertiary care centre in Pune ' by Baheti A].WebmedCentral 2014;4(12):WMCRW002908
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse