Reviewer's report
Title:Alkaline sphingomyelinase (NPP7) activity and isoforms in bile from
patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Version:1Date:26 June 2014
Reviewer: James Tabibian
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the investigators sought to examine NPP7 activity and the presence
of two NPP7 isoforms in bile from 59 patients undergoing diagnostic and/or
therapeutic ERCP for a variety of benign and malignant disease-related
indications. This is largely an exploratory descriptive study with perhaps some a
priori hypotheses regarding how NPP7 activity might vary (e.g. be decreased) in
malignant versus benign disease. The findings are intriguing and, albeit based on
a limited dataset, provide direction for future studies, including mechanistic
investigation. While there are no major limitations, a number of issues merit
consideration, as listed below:
ABSTRACT
-The background section of the abstract is fairly long and should be tightened.
-The aim of the study should be provided in the background section.
-Bilirubin is misspelled as “bilirubine”
INTRODUCTION
-The overview of NPP7 in general/in the intestine should be more abridged; this
would allow more opportunity to provide some additional background about
NPP7 in the liver/biliary tree, if desired.
METHODS
-There should be a paragraph dedicated for what specifically the
outcomes/endpoints were of the study (primary, secondary). Were there a priori
hypotheses being tested? Were all the statistical tests univariate, or was their
multivariate analysis as well? The reader can make some assumptions regarding
these points based on the last sentence of the introduction section, but it would
be preferable to delineate these points more clearly (for example in the data
analysis subsection).
RESULTS
-If “benignant” is being used to mean “benign”, please use “benign”, as used in
other parts of the manuscripts.
-What does the “O” in “(G + O)” represent? If this is “Other”, please define this
abbreviation prior to initial use.
-PSC should be defined in the body of the manuscript.
-Figure 5: it’s not clear that there is a strong association or that the relationship is
linear. Statistical consultation may be advisable, e.g. for X or Y transformation.
DISCUSSION
-The first paragraph of the discussion section is too long and should focus more
on the study findings/NPP7 in liver rather than including sentences dealing with
other studies/NPP7 in the intestines. The major findings of the study should
stand out more clearly.
-“Week” should be changed to “weak”
-There should be a paragraph added for limitations.
GENERAL:
-English language proofreading may be helpful to increase readability, e.g. in the
sentence “In order to see whether the 1.2 kb form earlier demonstrated in tumour
cell lines occurred in bile and could be linked to occurrence of tumours, all the
biles available were also analyzed by Western blotting.”
Reviewer's report
Title:Alkaline sphingomyelinase (NPP7) activity and isoforms in bile from
patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Version:1Date:26 June 2014
Reviewer: James Tabibian
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the investigators sought to examine NPP7 activity and the presence
of two NPP7 isoforms in bile from 59 patients undergoing diagnostic and/or
therapeutic ERCP for a variety of benign and malignant disease-related
indications. This is largely an exploratory descriptive study with perhaps some a
priori hypotheses regarding how NPP7 activity might vary (e.g. be decreased) in
malignant versus benign disease. The findings are intriguing and, albeit based on
a limited dataset, provide direction for future studies, including mechanistic
investigation. While there are no major limitations, a number of issues merit
consideration, as listed below:
ABSTRACT
-The background section of the abstract is fairly long and should be tightened.
-The aim of the study should be provided in the background section.
-Bilirubin is misspelled as “bilirubine”
INTRODUCTION
-The overview of NPP7 in general/in the intestine should be more abridged; this
would allow more opportunity to provide some additional background about
NPP7 in the liver/biliary tree, if desired.
METHODS
-There should be a paragraph dedicated for what specifically the
outcomes/endpoints were of the study (primary, secondary). Were there a priori
hypotheses being tested? Were all the statistical tests univariate, or was their
multivariate analysis as well? The reader can make some assumptions regarding
these points based on the last sentence of the introduction section, but it would
be preferable to delineate these points more clearly (for example in the data
analysis subsection).
RESULTS
-If “benignant” is being used to mean “benign”, please use “benign”, as used in
other parts of the manuscripts.
-What does the “O” in “(G + O)” represent? If this is “Other”, please define this
abbreviation prior to initial use.
-PSC should be defined in the body of the manuscript.
-Figure 5: it’s not clear that there is a strong association or that the relationship is
linear. Statistical consultation may be advisable, e.g. for X or Y transformation.
DISCUSSION
-The first paragraph of the discussion section is too long and should focus more
on the study findings/NPP7 in liver rather than including sentences dealing with
other studies/NPP7 in the intestines. The major findings of the study should
stand out more clearly.
-“Week” should be changed to “weak”
-There should be a paragraph added for limitations.
GENERAL:
-English language proofreading may be helpful to increase readability, e.g. in the
sentence “In order to see whether the 1.2 kb form earlier demonstrated in tumour
cell lines occurred in bile and could be linked to occurrence of tumours, all the
biles available were also analyzed by Western blotting.”
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Alkaline sphingomyelinase (NPP7) activity and isoforms in bile from
patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Version:1Date:26 June 2014
Reviewer: James Tabibian
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the investigators sought to examine NPP7 activity and the presence
of two NPP7 isoforms in bile from 59 patients undergoing diagnostic and/or
therapeutic ERCP for a variety of benign and malignant disease-related
indications. This is largely an exploratory descriptive study with perhaps some a
priori hypotheses regarding how NPP7 activity might vary (e.g. be decreased) in
malignant versus benign disease. The findings are intriguing and, albeit based on
a limited dataset, provide direction for future studies, including mechanistic
investigation. While there are no major limitations, a number of issues merit
consideration, as listed below:
ABSTRACT
-The background section of the abstract is fairly long and should be tightened.
-The aim of the study should be provided in the background section.
-Bilirubin is misspelled as “bilirubine”
INTRODUCTION
-The overview of NPP7 in general/in the intestine should be more abridged; this
would allow more opportunity to provide some additional background about
NPP7 in the liver/biliary tree, if desired.
METHODS
-There should be a paragraph dedicated for what specifically the
outcomes/endpoints were of the study (primary, secondary). Were there a priori
hypotheses being tested? Were all the statistical tests univariate, or was their
multivariate analysis as well? The reader can make some assumptions regarding
these points based on the last sentence of the introduction section, but it would
be preferable to delineate these points more clearly (for example in the data
analysis subsection).
RESULTS
-If “benignant” is being used to mean “benign”, please use “benign”, as used in
other parts of the manuscripts.
-What does the “O” in “(G + O)” represent? If this is “Other”, please define this
abbreviation prior to initial use.
-PSC should be defined in the body of the manuscript.
-Figure 5: it’s not clear that there is a strong association or that the relationship is
linear. Statistical consultation may be advisable, e.g. for X or Y transformation.
DISCUSSION
-The first paragraph of the discussion section is too long and should focus more
on the study findings/NPP7 in liver rather than including sentences dealing with
other studies/NPP7 in the intestines. The major findings of the study should
stand out more clearly.
-“Week” should be changed to “weak”
-There should be a paragraph added for limitations.
GENERAL:
-English language proofreading may be helpful to increase readability, e.g. in the
sentence “In order to see whether the 1.2 kb form earlier demonstrated in tumour
cell lines occurred in bile and could be linked to occurrence of tumours, all the
biles available were also analyzed by Western blotting.”
assistant