• Users Online: 421
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 36-37

Comments on: A rare entity of tubercular mastitis with chest wall extension in a male


1 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Government Medical College, Kota, Rajasthan, India
2 Sudha Hospital and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan, India

Date of Web Publication23-Dec-2015

Correspondence Address:
Rajendra Takhar
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Qtr No 1/4, Government Medical College Campus, Kota - 324 010, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2320-8775.168620

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Bunkar M, Takhar R, Jangid V, Saxena A, Gupta Y. Comments on: A rare entity of tubercular mastitis with chest wall extension in a male. J Assoc Chest Physicians 2016;4:36-7

How to cite this URL:
Bunkar M, Takhar R, Jangid V, Saxena A, Gupta Y. Comments on: A rare entity of tubercular mastitis with chest wall extension in a male. J Assoc Chest Physicians [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Mar 26];4:36-7. Available from: http://www.jacpjournal.org/text.asp?2016/4/1/36/168620

Dear Sir,

We read with great interest the nicely written article “A rare entity of tubercular mastitis with chest wall extension in a male” by Prakash et al. published in the esteemed journal, The Journal of Association of Chest Physicians.[1] At the outset, we would like to go into raptures over the authors for sharing their experience with others and also for enlightening us with this topic of huge clinical importance in day-to-day practice. It is an interesting case of tubercular mastitis, an important differential diagnosis of breast carcinoma.

The authors have presented their case in a simple, fluent, painstaking and graceful way, yet we have some comments to offer for the authors:

  • The authors have mentioned that the patient visited a surgeon who did a lumpectomy considering it to be a neoplastic condition before attending to them. However, did not divulge the biopsy or histopathological examination of lumpectomy specimen further not explained as what treatment he got from the surgeon. Demonstration of characteristic histopathological features on biopsy specimen of the breast lump and/or culture positivity for mycobacterium are essential requisites to confirm the diagnosis of breast tuberculosis [2]
  • In the case history, the authors mentioned that incisional biopsy from chest wall swelling showed granulomatous inflammation suggestive of tubercular mastitis. As we know, there are numerous granulomatous conditions, including sarcoidosis, fungal infections, Wegener granulomatosis, and granulomatous reactions to altered fatty material, which may show the tuberculoid type of tissue reaction histologically and microscopically indistinguishable from tuberculosis.[3] The authors did not explain as what specific histopathological feature extricate it from other granulomatous conditions
  • There are many repetitions of sentences and even a complete paragraph, has been repeated in introduction and discussion, starting from “In Western countries, the reported incidence is <1% of breast lesions examined histologically. However, it accounts for 3% of surgically treatable breast conditions in India. It comprises about 3% of breast diseases and was 5 times less common than carcinoma of the breast. Though much more common in females, 4% of patients are males.” It is recommended that a good article should not have repetitions of previous ones [4]
  • Finally, there is gross plagiarism in this article, including introduction and discussion. As “plagiarism is the stealing of another person's ideas, methods, results, or words without giving proper attribution.” Majority of the material plagiarized from a review article by Tewari and Shukla [5] and leave an impression that the author first copy-pasted the complete published article in the document. Then, minor modifications were made to fill the important findings.[6]


It is our unpretentious request not to blame the authors, but to discuss common misconceptions during writing an article. We also want to emphasize how to write a good article by introducing and explaining the importance of plagiarism.

It would be prodigious if the authors respond in the larger interest of the readers of this esteemed journal.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Prakash V, Kumar V, Mishra A, Verma AK, Joshi A, Kant S. A rare entity of tubercular mastitis with chest wall extension in a male. J Assoc Chest Physicians 2015;3:57-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
  Medknow Journal  
2.
Kakkar S, Kapila K, Singh MK, Verma K. Tuberculosis of the breast. A cytomorphologic study. Acta Cytol 2000;44:292-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Symmers WS, editor. The breasts. In: Systemic Pathology. 2nd ed., Vol. 4. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1978. p. 1759-61.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Available from: http://www.thepenmagazine.net/20-steps-to-write- a-good-article/. [Last accessed on 2015 Jul 09].  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Tewari M, Shukla HS. Breast tuberculosis: Diagnosis, clinical features and management. Indian J Med Res 2005;122:103-10.   Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sharma BB, Singh V. Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Lung India 2011;28:148-50.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed748    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded83    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]