Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of the temporary placement of 3 different self-expanding
stents for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures: A prospective
multicentre study
Version: 1Date:11 May 2012
Reviewer: Stuart Gordon
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective, non-randomized study of patients with refractory benign
esophageal strictures treated with 3 types of stents. Stent placement was a late
step in the management of this difficult problem and the results reflect that.
Though the minority of patients in the study achieved long term success, it
appears that biodegradable stents or fully covered self-expanding metal stents
are preferable to self-expanding plastic stents which are associated with more
frequent stent migration, more reinterverntions and fewer cases of long-term
improvement (though not statistically signficant).
In general, the methods are well described and the data/results appear sound
and are well outlined.
Furthermore, the discussion and conclusions are well balanced and supported by
the data. Limitations are clearly stated and the authors do a good job in
acknowledging previously published studies.
Major Revisions: none
Minor Revisions:
1. Since the study is not randomized, please describe more clearly how the type
of stent was chosen. Was it at the discretion of the endoscopist, or was it done
consecutively (for instance 10 SEPS, then 10 biodegradable, then 10 SEMS)?
2. Paragraph 6 in Results: would change wording to: "In our study, 30% of
patients in the biodegradable stent group were dsyphagia free..."
3. Typo in Table 1, column 1 Post-surgical 4 out of 10 should be (40%) not (10%)
Discretionary Revisions: none.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of the temporary placement of 3 different self-expanding
stents for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures: A prospective
multicentre study
Version: 1Date:11 May 2012
Reviewer: Stuart Gordon
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective, non-randomized study of patients with refractory benign
esophageal strictures treated with 3 types of stents. Stent placement was a late
step in the management of this difficult problem and the results reflect that.
Though the minority of patients in the study achieved long term success, it
appears that biodegradable stents or fully covered self-expanding metal stents
are preferable to self-expanding plastic stents which are associated with more
frequent stent migration, more reinterverntions and fewer cases of long-term
improvement (though not statistically signficant).
In general, the methods are well described and the data/results appear sound
and are well outlined.
Furthermore, the discussion and conclusions are well balanced and supported by
the data. Limitations are clearly stated and the authors do a good job in
acknowledging previously published studies.
Major Revisions: none
Minor Revisions:
1. Since the study is not randomized, please describe more clearly how the type
of stent was chosen. Was it at the discretion of the endoscopist, or was it done
consecutively (for instance 10 SEPS, then 10 biodegradable, then 10 SEMS)?
2. Paragraph 6 in Results: would change wording to: "In our study, 30% of
patients in the biodegradable stent group were dsyphagia free..."
3. Typo in Table 1, column 1 Post-surgical 4 out of 10 should be (40%) not (10%)
Discretionary Revisions: none.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A comparison of the temporary placement of 3 different self-expanding
stents for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures: A prospective
multicentre study
Version: 1Date:11 May 2012
Reviewer: Stuart Gordon
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective, non-randomized study of patients with refractory benign
esophageal strictures treated with 3 types of stents. Stent placement was a late
step in the management of this difficult problem and the results reflect that.
Though the minority of patients in the study achieved long term success, it
appears that biodegradable stents or fully covered self-expanding metal stents
are preferable to self-expanding plastic stents which are associated with more
frequent stent migration, more reinterverntions and fewer cases of long-term
improvement (though not statistically signficant).
In general, the methods are well described and the data/results appear sound
and are well outlined.
Furthermore, the discussion and conclusions are well balanced and supported by
the data. Limitations are clearly stated and the authors do a good job in
acknowledging previously published studies.
Major Revisions: none
Minor Revisions:
1. Since the study is not randomized, please describe more clearly how the type
of stent was chosen. Was it at the discretion of the endoscopist, or was it done
consecutively (for instance 10 SEPS, then 10 biodegradable, then 10 SEMS)?
2. Paragraph 6 in Results: would change wording to: "In our study, 30% of
patients in the biodegradable stent group were dsyphagia free..."
3. Typo in Table 1, column 1 Post-surgical 4 out of 10 should be (40%) not (10%)
Discretionary Revisions: none.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant