Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:13 December 2011
Reviewer: Derek O'Reilly
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Patients:
Contrast-enhanced CT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of pancreatic
necrosis (IAP and BSG Guidelines). Give details of CT findings; timing, extent of
necrosis and preferably Balthazar score.
Make an explicit statement of the primary end-point, i.e. “the primary end-point
was…”
Statistical analysis: explain further or reference the “glm () and lm() functions”.
Results:
Table 1 could be much improved if it was presented as a trial profile, rather than
presenting the raw data for each patient.
Although 10 patients are said to reach the end-point, only 9 are accounted for in
the text (3 endoscopic, 2 percut., 1 died with lung cancer, 1 with ileus, 2 had
surgery = 9)
The timing of EUS is essential, as necrosis is a dynamic process. The number of
days from disease onset to EUS should be specified.
Discussion:
The issue of the timing of EUS should be addressed in the discussion, along with
other limitations.
The conclusion that clinical presentation or CRP does not define the long-term
clinical course is not valid. Your study of 31 patients is not powered to make this
conclusion, and this statement should be deleted or qualified.
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 7, 2nd line: add the word “open” before “surgery”.
Page 7: Move the sentence beginning, “Fig 1 shows…” to the Methods section.
P9, lines 7, 8, 9: Use “undrained” not “not drained”, insert “the” before “blood”
and “immune”. Line 11: omit “has” before “led”.
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:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:13 December 2011
Reviewer: Derek O'Reilly
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Patients:
Contrast-enhanced CT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of pancreatic
necrosis (IAP and BSG Guidelines). Give details of CT findings; timing, extent of
necrosis and preferably Balthazar score.
Make an explicit statement of the primary end-point, i.e. “the primary end-point
was…”
Statistical analysis: explain further or reference the “glm () and lm() functions”.
Results:
Table 1 could be much improved if it was presented as a trial profile, rather than
presenting the raw data for each patient.
Although 10 patients are said to reach the end-point, only 9 are accounted for in
the text (3 endoscopic, 2 percut., 1 died with lung cancer, 1 with ileus, 2 had
surgery = 9)
The timing of EUS is essential, as necrosis is a dynamic process. The number of
days from disease onset to EUS should be specified.
Discussion:
The issue of the timing of EUS should be addressed in the discussion, along with
other limitations.
The conclusion that clinical presentation or CRP does not define the long-term
clinical course is not valid. Your study of 31 patients is not powered to make this
conclusion, and this statement should be deleted or qualified.
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 7, 2nd line: add the word “open” before “surgery”.
Page 7: Move the sentence beginning, “Fig 1 shows…” to the Methods section.
P9, lines 7, 8, 9: Use “undrained” not “not drained”, insert “the” before “blood”
and “immune”. Line 11: omit “has” before “led”.
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:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:13 December 2011
Reviewer: Derek O'Reilly
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Patients:
Contrast-enhanced CT is the gold standard for the diagnosis of pancreatic
necrosis (IAP and BSG Guidelines). Give details of CT findings; timing, extent of
necrosis and preferably Balthazar score.
Make an explicit statement of the primary end-point, i.e. “the primary end-point
was…”
Statistical analysis: explain further or reference the “glm () and lm() functions”.
Results:
Table 1 could be much improved if it was presented as a trial profile, rather than
presenting the raw data for each patient.
Although 10 patients are said to reach the end-point, only 9 are accounted for in
the text (3 endoscopic, 2 percut., 1 died with lung cancer, 1 with ileus, 2 had
surgery = 9)
The timing of EUS is essential, as necrosis is a dynamic process. The number of
days from disease onset to EUS should be specified.
Discussion:
The issue of the timing of EUS should be addressed in the discussion, along with
other limitations.
The conclusion that clinical presentation or CRP does not define the long-term
clinical course is not valid. Your study of 31 patients is not powered to make this
conclusion, and this statement should be deleted or qualified.
Minor Essential Revisions
Page 7, 2nd line: add the word “open” before “surgery”.
Page 7: Move the sentence beginning, “Fig 1 shows…” to the Methods section.
P9, lines 7, 8, 9: Use “undrained” not “not drained”, insert “the” before “blood”
and “immune”. Line 11: omit “has” before “led”.
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