Reviewer's report
Title:Caustic ingestion in adults: the role of endoscopic classification in
predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:19 January 2008
Reviewer: Menachem Gross
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
Comments to Authors Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# Manuscript Title: Caustic ingestion in
adults: the role of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome
The authors have provided a well written and interesting original study on the role
of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome of caustic ingestion in adults.
However, after careful consideration of the manuscript, I think that there are few
weak points:
1. In the abstract, the authors should describe more relevant results in the result
section.
2. In the methods, the authors should define how they evaluate the amount of
ingested substance.
3. In the results section page 8: "One patients committed twice suicide with
different corrosive substance in three month" Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# should be change
to "One patient committed suicide two times with different corrosive substance in
three month".
4. In the result section page 9: "The results of EGD indicated that the largest
group of patients sustained grade 3b mucosal injuries (n = 82, 30.03%)"
Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# should be change to "The results of EGD in this study showed
that grade 3b injuries was the most common caustic injury (n = 82, 30.03%),
followedÃ#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â¦".
5. Generally, the topic is interesting but the message is not new enough.
Menachem Gross, MD
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Caustic ingestion in adults: the role of endoscopic classification in
predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:19 January 2008
Reviewer: Menachem Gross
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
Comments to Authors Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# Manuscript Title: Caustic ingestion in
adults: the role of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome
The authors have provided a well written and interesting original study on the role
of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome of caustic ingestion in adults.
However, after careful consideration of the manuscript, I think that there are few
weak points:
1. In the abstract, the authors should describe more relevant results in the result
section.
2. In the methods, the authors should define how they evaluate the amount of
ingested substance.
3. In the results section page 8: "One patients committed twice suicide with
different corrosive substance in three month" Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# should be change
to "One patient committed suicide two times with different corrosive substance in
three month".
4. In the result section page 9: "The results of EGD indicated that the largest
group of patients sustained grade 3b mucosal injuries (n = 82, 30.03%)"
Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# should be change to "The results of EGD in this study showed
that grade 3b injuries was the most common caustic injury (n = 82, 30.03%),
followedÃ#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â¦".
5. Generally, the topic is interesting but the message is not new enough.
Menachem Gross, MD
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Caustic ingestion in adults: the role of endoscopic classification in
predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:19 January 2008
Reviewer: Menachem Gross
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
Comments to Authors Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# Manuscript Title: Caustic ingestion in
adults: the role of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome
The authors have provided a well written and interesting original study on the role
of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome of caustic ingestion in adults.
However, after careful consideration of the manuscript, I think that there are few
weak points:
1. In the abstract, the authors should describe more relevant results in the result
section.
2. In the methods, the authors should define how they evaluate the amount of
ingested substance.
3. In the results section page 8: "One patients committed twice suicide with
different corrosive substance in three month" Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# should be change
to "One patient committed suicide two times with different corrosive substance in
three month".
4. In the result section page 9: "The results of EGD indicated that the largest
group of patients sustained grade 3b mucosal injuries (n = 82, 30.03%)"
Ã#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â# should be change to "The results of EGD in this study showed
that grade 3b injuries was the most common caustic injury (n = 82, 30.03%),
followedÃ#Â¢Ã#Â#Ã#Â¦".
5. Generally, the topic is interesting but the message is not new enough.
Menachem Gross, MD
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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