Reviewer's report
Title:A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state
system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery
Version: 1Date:16 August 2012
Reviewer: Marcelo F. Vela
Reviewer's report:
1. Interesting small study comparing water-perfused versus solid-state high
resolution manomtery.
2. For a full paper publication the authors would have to repeat the experiment in
a larger number of patients (not volunteers) to see if diangosis is affected by type
of catheter and also look at correlation of Chicago Classification variables using
the two different systems.
3. The data they present which is mainly on healthy controls, may be better
suited for a "brief communication" or "short report".
4. The authors state that SSM provided "more information". What is not clear is
whether this increase in amount of information is clinically relevant (in other
words, will the diagnosis change? is there a risk of false positives or false
negatives with the reduced data from the WPM approach?).
5. Table 1 should show the units of measurement for each variable (mmHg, cm,
etc).
6. In addition to LES relaxation ratio, they should calculate and compare
integrated relaxation pressure.
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:
Advisory Panel - GIven Imaging.
Reviewer's report
Title:A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state
system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery
Version: 1Date:16 August 2012
Reviewer: Marcelo F. Vela
Reviewer's report:
1. Interesting small study comparing water-perfused versus solid-state high
resolution manomtery.
2. For a full paper publication the authors would have to repeat the experiment in
a larger number of patients (not volunteers) to see if diangosis is affected by type
of catheter and also look at correlation of Chicago Classification variables using
the two different systems.
3. The data they present which is mainly on healthy controls, may be better
suited for a "brief communication" or "short report".
4. The authors state that SSM provided "more information". What is not clear is
whether this increase in amount of information is clinically relevant (in other
words, will the diagnosis change? is there a risk of false positives or false
negatives with the reduced data from the WPM approach?).
5. Table 1 should show the units of measurement for each variable (mmHg, cm,
etc).
6. In addition to LES relaxation ratio, they should calculate and compare
integrated relaxation pressure.
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:
Advisory Panel - GIven Imaging.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state
system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery
Version: 1Date:16 August 2012
Reviewer: Marcelo F. Vela
Reviewer's report:
1. Interesting small study comparing water-perfused versus solid-state high
resolution manomtery.
2. For a full paper publication the authors would have to repeat the experiment in
a larger number of patients (not volunteers) to see if diangosis is affected by type
of catheter and also look at correlation of Chicago Classification variables using
the two different systems.
3. The data they present which is mainly on healthy controls, may be better
suited for a "brief communication" or "short report".
4. The authors state that SSM provided "more information". What is not clear is
whether this increase in amount of information is clinically relevant (in other
words, will the diagnosis change? is there a risk of false positives or false
negatives with the reduced data from the WPM approach?).
5. Table 1 should show the units of measurement for each variable (mmHg, cm,
etc).
6. In addition to LES relaxation ratio, they should calculate and compare
integrated relaxation pressure.
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:
Advisory Panel - GIven Imaging.
assistant