Reviewer's report
Title:Caustic ingestion in adults: The role of age in predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:23 February 2011
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Cheng et al in this study have analysed the outcome of patients with caustic
ingestion based on age, less than and more than 65 years. They have concluded
that elderly patients had more systemic complications and poorer outcome than
younger patients.
Material and methods : Definitions of systemic and GI complications should be
given in this section.
Results
1. The authors have straight away gone on to give analysis of their data. They
need to first give the detailed results, the spectrum of injury and the way the
patients were managed. What were the complications, what were the infections
and how were they managed etc.
2. Causes of mortality should be added.
3. HOW LONG WERE THE PATIENTS FOLLOWED UP ?
4 What were the comorbidities in the 2 groups ?
Discussion
IN this section the authors should discuss the results primarily with differences in
the 2 groups giving explanation for their findings. For example they need to
discuss the importance of endoscopic grading in the 2 groups. Similarly they
should discuss wheather it just the pre existing co morbidity which affects the
outcome . And are the systemic complications due to only their elderly age. Or is
it the hospitalisation that is responsible for the negative outcome.
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Caustic ingestion in adults: The role of age in predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:23 February 2011
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Cheng et al in this study have analysed the outcome of patients with caustic
ingestion based on age, less than and more than 65 years. They have concluded
that elderly patients had more systemic complications and poorer outcome than
younger patients.
Material and methods : Definitions of systemic and GI complications should be
given in this section.
Results
1. The authors have straight away gone on to give analysis of their data. They
need to first give the detailed results, the spectrum of injury and the way the
patients were managed. What were the complications, what were the infections
and how were they managed etc.
2. Causes of mortality should be added.
3. HOW LONG WERE THE PATIENTS FOLLOWED UP ?
4 What were the comorbidities in the 2 groups ?
Discussion
IN this section the authors should discuss the results primarily with differences in
the 2 groups giving explanation for their findings. For example they need to
discuss the importance of endoscopic grading in the 2 groups. Similarly they
should discuss wheather it just the pre existing co morbidity which affects the
outcome . And are the systemic complications due to only their elderly age. Or is
it the hospitalisation that is responsible for the negative outcome.
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
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 age in predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:23 February 2011
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Cheng et al in this study have analysed the outcome of patients with caustic
ingestion based on age, less than and more than 65 years. They have concluded
that elderly patients had more systemic complications and poorer outcome than
younger patients.
Material and methods : Definitions of systemic and GI complications should be
given in this section.
Results
1. The authors have straight away gone on to give analysis of their data. They
need to first give the detailed results, the spectrum of injury and the way the
patients were managed. What were the complications, what were the infections
and how were they managed etc.
2. Causes of mortality should be added.
3. HOW LONG WERE THE PATIENTS FOLLOWED UP ?
4 What were the comorbidities in the 2 groups ?
Discussion
IN this section the authors should discuss the results primarily with differences in
the 2 groups giving explanation for their findings. For example they need to
discuss the importance of endoscopic grading in the 2 groups. Similarly they
should discuss wheather it just the pre existing co morbidity which affects the
outcome . And are the systemic complications due to only their elderly age. Or is
it the hospitalisation that is responsible for the negative outcome.
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant