find the attachment file please and comment on the 6 questions :
1) Abstract – “The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between MA concentrations in blood, urine and vitreous humor” – did they achieve this aim?
2) Comment on the range and R2 of the calibration standards and the results presented in the graphs of real cases.
3) Comment on linearity of Figures 3, 4 and 5
4) Comment on the range and number of ‘significant’ places in the results:
“Mean ± S.E. of MA concentrations in urine, blood and vitreous humor 9 samples were 19914.22 ± 4627.70 ng/ml (range = 1132.02 – 144715.99 ng/ml), 44.70 ± 9.31 ng /ml (range = 2.52 – 316.42 ng/ml), and 1068.76 ± 306.32 ng/ml (range = 42.62 – 7691.95 ng/ml), respectively.”
5) Comment on the last paragraph of the conclusions “In conclusion, MA concentrations in blood, urine and vitreous humor …..and “vitreous humor can be used as an alternative to blood and urine samples for determination of MA concentrations…”
6) If you were on the jury would accept that the values reported for MA in the motorcyclist’s vitreous humor was a good indication of the level of MA in the motorcyclist’s blood or urine and therefore level of impairment at the time of the accident?