Reviewer's report
Title:Caustic ingestion in adults: the role of endoscopic classification in
predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:6 February 2008
Reviewer: Showkat Zargar
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a retrospective analysis of 273 adult patients with caustic
injury in terms of clinical and endoscopic findings, and short-term and long-term
clinical outcomes in relation to endoscopic findings. The present study shows
that endoscopic classification of burns can be used to predict accurately the
short-term and long-term complications, clinical outcome and provide opportunity
to guide appropriate treatment. Although the study has been well conducted with
valid conclusions, but I would like to authors respond to the following points
Major points
1. The authors should state the complications, if any, encountered because of
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
2. Abstract needs to be written
a. Introduction needs to be shortened.
b. Results can be improved by adding more data
a. Conclusions made are inconsistent with observations of the study. Authors
concluded that â##patients with grade 3b burns on endoscopy merit surgical
exploration. The extent of tissue destruction depends on the physical form, type,
and concentration of caustic agent, premorbid state of the tissue, contact
duration, and amount of substance ingested. Indications, mucosal injuryâ##.
There is no data available in the manuscript on these conclusions.
b. I understand conclusions can be â##Upper endoscopy is safe, reliable and
sufficient for evaluation of extent and severity of mucosal injury after caustic
ingestion. It accurately predicts the immediate and long-term complications, and
guides appropriate therapyâ##
Minor points
1. Type of fiberoptic endoscopy used i.e., outer diameter of endoscope used
2. Was entire upper gastrointestinal tract inspected during endoscopy especially
in patients with grade III burns?
Level of interest
An article of importance in its field
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 have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Caustic ingestion in adults: the role of endoscopic classification in
predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:6 February 2008
Reviewer: Showkat Zargar
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a retrospective analysis of 273 adult patients with caustic
injury in terms of clinical and endoscopic findings, and short-term and long-term
clinical outcomes in relation to endoscopic findings. The present study shows
that endoscopic classification of burns can be used to predict accurately the
short-term and long-term complications, clinical outcome and provide opportunity
to guide appropriate treatment. Although the study has been well conducted with
valid conclusions, but I would like to authors respond to the following points
Major points
1. The authors should state the complications, if any, encountered because of
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
2. Abstract needs to be written
a. Introduction needs to be shortened.
b. Results can be improved by adding more data
a. Conclusions made are inconsistent with observations of the study. Authors
concluded that â##patients with grade 3b burns on endoscopy merit surgical
exploration. The extent of tissue destruction depends on the physical form, type,
and concentration of caustic agent, premorbid state of the tissue, contact
duration, and amount of substance ingested. Indications, mucosal injuryâ##.
There is no data available in the manuscript on these conclusions.
b. I understand conclusions can be â##Upper endoscopy is safe, reliable and
sufficient for evaluation of extent and severity of mucosal injury after caustic
ingestion. It accurately predicts the immediate and long-term complications, and
guides appropriate therapyâ##
Minor points
1. Type of fiberoptic endoscopy used i.e., outer diameter of endoscope used
2. Was entire upper gastrointestinal tract inspected during endoscopy especially
in patients with grade III burns?
Level of interest
An article of importance in its field
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 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:6 February 2008
Reviewer: Showkat Zargar
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a retrospective analysis of 273 adult patients with caustic
injury in terms of clinical and endoscopic findings, and short-term and long-term
clinical outcomes in relation to endoscopic findings. The present study shows
that endoscopic classification of burns can be used to predict accurately the
short-term and long-term complications, clinical outcome and provide opportunity
to guide appropriate treatment. Although the study has been well conducted with
valid conclusions, but I would like to authors respond to the following points
Major points
1. The authors should state the complications, if any, encountered because of
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
2. Abstract needs to be written
a. Introduction needs to be shortened.
b. Results can be improved by adding more data
a. Conclusions made are inconsistent with observations of the study. Authors
concluded that â##patients with grade 3b burns on endoscopy merit surgical
exploration. The extent of tissue destruction depends on the physical form, type,
and concentration of caustic agent, premorbid state of the tissue, contact
duration, and amount of substance ingested. Indications, mucosal injuryâ##.
There is no data available in the manuscript on these conclusions.
b. I understand conclusions can be â##Upper endoscopy is safe, reliable and
sufficient for evaluation of extent and severity of mucosal injury after caustic
ingestion. It accurately predicts the immediate and long-term complications, and
guides appropriate therapyâ##
Minor points
1. Type of fiberoptic endoscopy used i.e., outer diameter of endoscope used
2. Was entire upper gastrointestinal tract inspected during endoscopy especially
in patients with grade III burns?
Level of interest
An article of importance in its field
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 have no competing interests
assistant