Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial to evaluate the value of
a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT-colonography
Version: 2Date:26 July 2011
Reviewer: Philippe Ducrotte
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting protocol about a clinically relevant question. The results are
suitable to improve the realization of CT-colonography.
Major compulsory revisions :
1. Pain assesment is critical. It is unclear why the authors have selected a 1.3
point reduction on a 11-numeric rating scale. This scale is rather unusual. How
can the authors be sure that a 1.3 point reduction is clinically relevant. Moreover,
it is difficult to understand when and how the pain will be assessed. "During the
procedure" is not precise enough. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why "a
score of 10 means the worst pain imaginable" if a 11-numeric scale is used.
2. 90 consecutive patients will be included. But to allow comparisons, the two
groups have to be not different when age and indications will be considered. It is
possible to speculate that pain related to distension could be probably higher in
patients explored for abdominal pain than in asymptomatic patients referred for
screnning. Will patients referred for screening only included ? If not, how the
randomization will be done.
3. For a pertinent clinical answer, the number of patients excluded because of a
contradication for alfentanil needs to be precisely assessed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial to evaluate the value of
a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT-colonography
Version: 2Date:26 July 2011
Reviewer: Philippe Ducrotte
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting protocol about a clinically relevant question. The results are
suitable to improve the realization of CT-colonography.
Major compulsory revisions :
1. Pain assesment is critical. It is unclear why the authors have selected a 1.3
point reduction on a 11-numeric rating scale. This scale is rather unusual. How
can the authors be sure that a 1.3 point reduction is clinically relevant. Moreover,
it is difficult to understand when and how the pain will be assessed. "During the
procedure" is not precise enough. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why "a
score of 10 means the worst pain imaginable" if a 11-numeric scale is used.
2. 90 consecutive patients will be included. But to allow comparisons, the two
groups have to be not different when age and indications will be considered. It is
possible to speculate that pain related to distension could be probably higher in
patients explored for abdominal pain than in asymptomatic patients referred for
screnning. Will patients referred for screening only included ? If not, how the
randomization will be done.
3. For a pertinent clinical answer, the number of patients excluded because of a
contradication for alfentanil needs to be precisely assessed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interest
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial to evaluate the value of
a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT-colonography
Version: 2Date:26 July 2011
Reviewer: Philippe Ducrotte
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting protocol about a clinically relevant question. The results are
suitable to improve the realization of CT-colonography.
Major compulsory revisions :
1. Pain assesment is critical. It is unclear why the authors have selected a 1.3
point reduction on a 11-numeric rating scale. This scale is rather unusual. How
can the authors be sure that a 1.3 point reduction is clinically relevant. Moreover,
it is difficult to understand when and how the pain will be assessed. "During the
procedure" is not precise enough. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why "a
score of 10 means the worst pain imaginable" if a 11-numeric scale is used.
2. 90 consecutive patients will be included. But to allow comparisons, the two
groups have to be not different when age and indications will be considered. It is
possible to speculate that pain related to distension could be probably higher in
patients explored for abdominal pain than in asymptomatic patients referred for
screnning. Will patients referred for screening only included ? If not, how the
randomization will be done.
3. For a pertinent clinical answer, the number of patients excluded because of a
contradication for alfentanil needs to be precisely assessed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interest
assistant