"Decellularized Retinal Matrix" is a wonderful example of a paper on ophthalmology. The retina is an essential light-sensitive tissue responsible for night and day vision. Macula (found at the center of this nerve tissue) facilitates sharp, central vision required seeing fine details, reading, and driving, etc. Since the retina is subject to a number of disorders, efforts made to avert retinal damage and or facilitate retinal damage repair are readily welcomed. Based on the background information on retinal disorders, conventional treatment approaches, current, and future perspectives, the proposal does make sense.
However, one has to read a bigger part of the proposal so as to see its sense. The level of professionalism for this proposal needs to be improved. To bring out the sense of the proposal and make it more professional it is advisable to focus more on the current conventional treatments employed for retinal disorders (rather than the disorders themselves) and clearly bring out their shortcomings. This will readily illustrate the sense and greater need for the proposal without one having to read a lot into the proposal. The author’ s message is understandable.
The paragraphs do bring out clear points. However, the organization of the proposal’ s subsections should be checked. The paragraphs on the background information on retinal disorders are a bit long. The content on shortcomings of conventional retinal disorder treatments is little. Improving on this is aiming at bringing out the need for your intended treatment enhancements will make the proposal better. This draft proposal has typing errors, punctuation, and a few grammar errors that need to be corrected. SPECIFIC AIMS I would be able to explain the goals of this study to another person(s).
The general purpose of the study is brief but not readily understandable. One has to have prior knowledge of functions and significance of the extracellular matrix (ECM); interactions and reactions involved between donor and parent cells (e. g. compatibility issues and immunologic reactions). The hypothesis is clear and well understood upon conclusive reading of the initial parts of the proposal including the background information. The objectives and or aims are clear and there is a clear cut on how they will be consummated. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE The worthiness of the project/ proposal is brought out but not very clearly.
Directly stating how the project will overcome the inadequacies of conventional and or previous retinal damage treatment will readily reveal the need to pursue the research. The scope of the research question has been attended to. There is a need to fund the research since retinal damage does not only affect the old but the young as well. It is important to show that not only the old but also the young are subjected to retinal damage at some point in their lives.
This will widen the “ big picture” increasing the chances to get funding. The background is clear and logical. The subheading ‘ Age-related Macular Degeneration may be shortened and or eliminated unless the disorder is directly and or more linked to the research question. All in all, the subheadings are ordered and useful. The background information is conclusive: it enlightens on previous works and gives insight into the need for the proposed research. The author has clearly stated what the proposed research will accomplish. RESEARCH DESIGN All the proposed specific aims have been dealt with within the RESEARCH DESIGN.
The methods stated are easy to understand and follow expressing the potential/ ability to address the specific aims. The outcomes have been discussed. However, potential problems have not been clearly tackled. These ought to be addressed unless the available knowledge, methods, and techniques are absolute. It is vital to know of and or speculate possible limitations based on current knowledge. LITERATURE CITED The references used are appropriate and reliable. Statements in the proposal have enough citations; eliminating the reader’ s possible doubt of the source of information.
The citations within the proposal have been done properly (author, year). The literature cited section has also been done well (according to the Capstone guidelines).