Submited on: 21 Nov 2014 12:16:57 AM GMT
Published on: 21 Nov 2014 02:12:05 PM GMT
 

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

    Main claims were that the geriatric patients with the same risk factors of adults show similar therapeutic responses.

    Its already reported in literature that the morbidity and mortality is comparatively high in older age group. so this rational of study is not that important.


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

    These claims are not new and already proved in literature.


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

    Previous literature is not discussed  or mentioned


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

    There is a weak link between claim and results due to very broad nature of study. one can not draw a conclusion precisly when there are too many comorbidities, complications and scenerios. Its better if one compare specific comorbadities and complications.


  • 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?

    NA


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

    Study design is not observational, it is interventional because in all patients certian intervention is done and results are compared. 

    Methodology is vague and doent tell about the level of surgeon who conducted this study.

    There is a gross dissimilarity between two groups ie group A contain 43 and Group B contain 129 patients.

     


  • 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?

    Objective are too braod for comparision and its not possible to draw a specific  and definite conclusion from such a broad and varied findings.


  • 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?

    Having certain limitations so it can not be decleared as a outstanding paper.


  • Other Comments:

    Conclusion is too long and vague.

    Objective are discussed in unnecessary details which is not required rather other details should be mentioned in rationale of study.

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria are too broad - should need to be more specific.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Ahmed I .The oncological colorectal surgery in the Great elderly. Risk factors and predictive indexes.is this the future of a patient-modulated surgery?[Review of the article 'The oncological colorectal surgery in the Great Elderly. Risk factors and predictive indexes. Is this the future of a patient-modulated surgery? ' by Sforza N].WebmedCentral 2014;5(12):WMCRW003173
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Colorectal surgey in the great elderly
Posted by Dr. Marcello Picchio on 26 Nov 2014 12:30:43 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

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

    Feasibility of surgery for colorectal cancer in patients older than 80 years.

    Resultes related to comorbidities


  • 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?

    NA


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

    I suggest to describe the statistical analysis in the Methods section and not in the Results one.


  • 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:

    NA

  • 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:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Picchio M .Colorectal surgey in the great elderly [Review of the article 'The oncological colorectal surgery in the Great Elderly. Risk factors and predictive indexes. Is this the future of a patient-modulated surgery? ' by Sforza N].WebmedCentral 2014;5(11):WMCRW003147
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The main claims are risk factors (..urgency interventions......) and predictive indexes (...Charlson Index...) in great elderly patients. This factors are very important for the daily routine.


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

    Yes, prospective study.


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    This paper is important for the daily routine of general surgeons due to the fact that more and more patients are the great elderly.


  • Other Comments:

    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:

    general surgeon with great experience in that filed of surgery.

  • How to cite:  Kornprat P .The oncological colorectal surgery in the great elderly. Risk factors and predictive indexes. Is this the future of a patient-modulated surgery?[Review of the article 'The oncological colorectal surgery in the Great Elderly. Risk factors and predictive indexes. Is this the future of a patient-modulated surgery? ' by Sforza N].WebmedCentral 2014;5(11):WMCRW003137
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse