Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:26 November 2007
Reviewer: Alberto Mariani
Reviewer's report:
Only minor language corrections:
To do the following corrections
a) in the conclusion of the abstract: Corticosteroids cannot prevent pancreatic
injury after ERCP. Therefore, their use in the prophylaxis of PEP is not
recommended.
b) in the last three lines of the discussion: Therefore, further studies with the
standard administration of cortecosteroids in ERCP are needed to provide solid
evidence regarding its effectiveness in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
c) in the conclusion (corrections in the last two lines): Therefore, the use of
corticosteroids in the prophylaxis of PEP is not routinely recommended.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:26 November 2007
Reviewer: Alberto Mariani
Reviewer's report:
Only minor language corrections:
To do the following corrections
a) in the conclusion of the abstract: Corticosteroids cannot prevent pancreatic
injury after ERCP. Therefore, their use in the prophylaxis of PEP is not
recommended.
b) in the last three lines of the discussion: Therefore, further studies with the
standard administration of cortecosteroids in ERCP are needed to provide solid
evidence regarding its effectiveness in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
c) in the conclusion (corrections in the last two lines): Therefore, the use of
corticosteroids in the prophylaxis of PEP is not routinely recommended.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:26 November 2007
Reviewer: Alberto Mariani
Reviewer's report:
Only minor language corrections:
To do the following corrections
a) in the conclusion of the abstract: Corticosteroids cannot prevent pancreatic
injury after ERCP. Therefore, their use in the prophylaxis of PEP is not
recommended.
b) in the last three lines of the discussion: Therefore, further studies with the
standard administration of cortecosteroids in ERCP are needed to provide solid
evidence regarding its effectiveness in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
c) in the conclusion (corrections in the last two lines): Therefore, the use of
corticosteroids in the prophylaxis of PEP is not routinely recommended.
What next?: Accept without revision
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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