Title: Step-up approach for the treatment of infected necrotising pancreatitis: real life data from
a single-centre experience with long-term follow-up
Version: 1 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
I read with great interest your study and I want to congratulate you for the effort made. This is
a very interesting topic and your study adds some data about "real life".
I have some comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:
- The abstract is too long; please reduce it to essential results- result section: please begin with
"the study included 41 patients...." Then you can cite tables. In its present form the results section
does not give the study results but it enumerates the tables...
- The results section is too long. please try to reorganize it.
- 75% of patients were referred from other centres. please describe it and also describe pre
drainage treatment.
- Did patients receive antibiotics before the diagnosis of infected necrosis? it would be a very
interesting data to add.
- Time to resolution of infection. Please specify criteria to define infection resolution.
- It would be very interesting to show characteristics of patients who need the second step
compared with those of patients in which the first step was effective. Is there any risk factor?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above.
Title: Step-up approach for the treatment of infected necrotising pancreatitis: real life data from
a single-centre experience with long-term follow-up
Version: 1 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
I read with great interest your study and I want to congratulate you for the effort made. This is
a very interesting topic and your study adds some data about "real life".
I have some comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:
- The abstract is too long; please reduce it to essential results- result section: please begin with
"the study included 41 patients...." Then you can cite tables. In its present form the results section
does not give the study results but it enumerates the tables...
- The results section is too long. please try to reorganize it.
- 75% of patients were referred from other centres. please describe it and also describe pre
drainage treatment.
- Did patients receive antibiotics before the diagnosis of infected necrosis? it would be a very
interesting data to add.
- Time to resolution of infection. Please specify criteria to define infection resolution.
- It would be very interesting to show characteristics of patients who need the second step
compared with those of patients in which the first step was effective. Is there any risk factor?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Step-up approach for the treatment of infected necrotising pancreatitis: real life data from
a single-centre experience with long-term follow-up
Version: 1 Date: 19 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Dear authors
I read with great interest your study and I want to congratulate you for the effort made. This is
a very interesting topic and your study adds some data about "real life".
I have some comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:
- The abstract is too long; please reduce it to essential results- result section: please begin with
"the study included 41 patients...." Then you can cite tables. In its present form the results section
does not give the study results but it enumerates the tables...
- The results section is too long. please try to reorganize it.
- 75% of patients were referred from other centres. please describe it and also describe pre
drainage treatment.
- Did patients receive antibiotics before the diagnosis of infected necrosis? it would be a very
interesting data to add.
- Time to resolution of infection. Please specify criteria to define infection resolution.
- It would be very interesting to show characteristics of patients who need the second step
compared with those of patients in which the first step was effective. Is there any risk factor?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see my comments above.
assistant