Reviewer's report
Title:Cerebral microdialysis reflects the efficacy of Fractionated Plasma
Separation and Adsorption treatment of acute liver failure earlier than intracranial
pressure - a controlled study in pigs
Version: 1Date:19 April 2013
Reviewer: Amitabh suman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
The aim of the study needs to be clarified. Is it a comparoson between two ways
of monitoring namely ICP measurement and cerebral microdialysis or is it
studying whether FPSA is a useful modality of therapy. The title suggests the
former and the writing suggests the latter with some "objective" thrown in
between in introduction. The title, declared objective , the collected data and the
writing should all move towards one goal. I am totally confused after reading the
current version
A lot of unnecessary details of surgery and management are described. it is not
at all necessary if it is a well established model as claimed. Also there is
unnecessary descriptive details in the discussion which should be focussed on
the current experiment its validity and comparison to other similar studies.
A lot of details is thrown in reg statistical anslysis in methodology but there is no
evidence at all that it has been applied - not even a p value figures in the results.
The result section needs to be in accordance to the aim. In the current version
the results are thrown in without any sense of direction.
The language and articulation needs significant improvement
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest in relation to the paper. I also have no disclosures to
make regarding financial issues
Reviewer's report
Title:Cerebral microdialysis reflects the efficacy of Fractionated Plasma
Separation and Adsorption treatment of acute liver failure earlier than intracranial
pressure - a controlled study in pigs
Version: 1Date:19 April 2013
Reviewer: Amitabh suman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
The aim of the study needs to be clarified. Is it a comparoson between two ways
of monitoring namely ICP measurement and cerebral microdialysis or is it
studying whether FPSA is a useful modality of therapy. The title suggests the
former and the writing suggests the latter with some "objective" thrown in
between in introduction. The title, declared objective , the collected data and the
writing should all move towards one goal. I am totally confused after reading the
current version
A lot of unnecessary details of surgery and management are described. it is not
at all necessary if it is a well established model as claimed. Also there is
unnecessary descriptive details in the discussion which should be focussed on
the current experiment its validity and comparison to other similar studies.
A lot of details is thrown in reg statistical anslysis in methodology but there is no
evidence at all that it has been applied - not even a p value figures in the results.
The result section needs to be in accordance to the aim. In the current version
the results are thrown in without any sense of direction.
The language and articulation needs significant improvement
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest in relation to the paper. I also have no disclosures to
make regarding financial issues
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Cerebral microdialysis reflects the efficacy of Fractionated Plasma
Separation and Adsorption treatment of acute liver failure earlier than intracranial
pressure - a controlled study in pigs
Version: 1Date:19 April 2013
Reviewer: Amitabh suman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
The aim of the study needs to be clarified. Is it a comparoson between two ways
of monitoring namely ICP measurement and cerebral microdialysis or is it
studying whether FPSA is a useful modality of therapy. The title suggests the
former and the writing suggests the latter with some "objective" thrown in
between in introduction. The title, declared objective , the collected data and the
writing should all move towards one goal. I am totally confused after reading the
current version
A lot of unnecessary details of surgery and management are described. it is not
at all necessary if it is a well established model as claimed. Also there is
unnecessary descriptive details in the discussion which should be focussed on
the current experiment its validity and comparison to other similar studies.
A lot of details is thrown in reg statistical anslysis in methodology but there is no
evidence at all that it has been applied - not even a p value figures in the results.
The result section needs to be in accordance to the aim. In the current version
the results are thrown in without any sense of direction.
The language and articulation needs significant improvement
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest in relation to the paper. I also have no disclosures to
make regarding financial issues
assistant