Persistence of Glenohumeral Subluxation is Correlated with Prolonged Existence of Crossed Cerebellar Diaschisis in a Hemiplegic Stroke Survivor: A Pilot Study

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Excellent

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Very good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are 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?

A: Very good

Comments:

The case is well-described, and the Discussion presents an adequate analysis taking all other relevant studies into consideration. The limitations of the study are also aptly pointed out, which are that ultrasonography was not used as a measurement, no acromiohumeral distance data in patients with glenohumeral subluxation (GHS) but without cross cerebellar diaschisis (CCD) could be obtained, and that the study is based on a single case report, making it unreliable for extension to other similar patients. The authors infer that CCD has a strong relationship with and exacerbates GHS.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Very good

Comments: A few minor issues were noted –

·       The full form of AHD was not introduced the first time it was mentioned in the main text.

·       In the 2^nd paragraph of the Discussion, in the 2^nd sentence, “mm⁵” and in the 6^th sentence, “mm²” must be replaced with “mm”.

·       The last sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Discussion must be replaced with “If this condition goes undetected early, and is improperly handled, it may cause shoulder pain and limit shoulder movements”.

·       In the 6^th sentence of the 10^th paragraph of the Discussion, “literature” was misspelled.

·       In several places, articles (a, an, or the) and punctuations were incorrectly used and in a couple of places, inconsistent tense was used.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This is a report of a case of hemiplegic stroke in a 52-year-old woman which leads the authors to suggest that cross cerebellar diaschisis has a strong relationship with and exacerbates glenohumeral subluxation in a hemiplegic stroke survivor. The case also indicates the importance of the spino-reticulo-thalamic pathway, which goes upward ipsilaterally to the thalamus.

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.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team