Census of Cardiac Uptake on Routine Bone Scintigraphy, a Methodology to Assess the Prevalence of the TTR Amyloidosis
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal's area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
Tools and Methods
Q: Are the methods the author uses adequate and well used?
A: Very Good
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?
Comments: The Discussion highlights the correct diagnosis of Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis (TTR CA) that includes multiple exploratory modalities. The study put forth the importance of ECG, ECHO and MRI in the proper diagnosis of the patient suspected of CA. It further discusses the sensitivity and specificity of scintigraphy using bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals (BSR), as compared to ECHO and MRI providing relevant literature. The study also illustrates the incidences of myocardial uptake among males and females and highlights the limitations of the study. The Conclusion focuses on the study that showed that the incidence of myocardial uptake increases with age. Lastly, the Conclusion suggests that improving awareness about the prevalence will improve the diagnosis and treatment for the disease.
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
Comments: There are few errors found in the manuscript, which are as follows:
· Under Objective, 2nd sentence, “Diagnosis making cannot be based on echography…” should be written as “Diagnosis decision making cannot be based on echography…”
· Under the Results section, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, “A total of consecutive 2211 cases of bone scintigraphy…” should be written as “A total of 2211 consecutive cases of bone scintigraphy…”.
· In Conclusion, 2nd paragraph, “To diagnose the TTR CA at a preclinical stage… minutely the myocardial uptake of bone scintigraphy of all incoming patients…” is rewritten as “To diagnose the TTR CA at a preclinical stage… the myocardial uptake of bone scintigraphy of all incoming patients minutely…”.
Further comments on the paper
Comments: The manuscript provides the retrospective study of 2211 patients for the estimation of the bone scintigraphies and the prevalence of the transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis in the study. The authors described the methods involved in the whole study and discussed the outcome from the results in tabular and graphical form.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.
Science Repository Team
This email is restricted to the intended user.
|Science Repository - Support|
Corresponding AuthorFeras Chehade
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Baabda, Lebanon
Article TypeResearch Article
Publication historyReceived: Tue 31, May 2022
Accepted: Wed 15, Jun 2022
Published: Thu 30, Jun 2022
Copyright© 2021 Feras Chehade. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.