Title: The clinical characteristics of focal acute pancreatitis based on imaging diagnosis:
comparison with non-localized acute pancreatitis- a preliminary result
Version: 2 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Konstantin A. Lesko
Reviewer's report:
The article dedicated to interesting and important subject - focal acute pancreatitis (AP)- a special
type of acute pancreatitis, which diagnosis is based on image showing a focal mass formation
in the pancreas.
I have a list of minor comments that I would like to recommend to revise in the article.
General recommendations
1. Imaging is crucial for focal AP diagnosis, literally one or two figures would be great to
illustrate this disease in comparation with non-localized AP.
2. Study group is quite small and authors mentioned that the larger sample size and multicenter
research work are needed in the future. Could you explain why sample size was so small in
your center? Groups enlargement could make your results more significant or even modify and
specify them.
Abstract
3. There are results of clinical and laboratory signs of focal AP in results-part in the abstract.
Only significant differences are shown, but in conclusion-part differences described as non-
significant.
4. The AP severity comparison in result-part did not note, but described in conclusion. So, your
decision upon severity looks non-obvious.
Background
5. If you place some abbreviations it could be better use them in whole text.
6. [non-mandatory] I suppose it could be better to replace a part about AP in the beginning of
the background part.
Methods
7. All abbreviations should be decoded (e.g. CT, MSAP, SAP).
Results
8. Why authors did not put concrete p-values in results, despite the had already noted in abstract,
for example p-value for abdominal tenderness comparison.
Discussion
9. Authors noted that signs and laboratory indicators of focal AP are not obvious, however
statistically significant differences between groups with focal AP and non-localized AP were
shown in results. How can you explain your decision upon non-obviousness, any criteria? From
my point of view this explanation could make discussion part better.
10. [non-mandatory] The study disadvantages were correctly described, but did you think about
article’s title change into “first or preliminary results”? It is non-mandatory comment, only
humble opinion.
11. I recommend authors extend the abbreviations list to make article clearer.
Title: The clinical characteristics of focal acute pancreatitis based on imaging diagnosis:
comparison with non-localized acute pancreatitis- a preliminary result
Version: 2 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Konstantin A. Lesko
Reviewer's report:
The article dedicated to interesting and important subject - focal acute pancreatitis (AP)- a special
type of acute pancreatitis, which diagnosis is based on image showing a focal mass formation
in the pancreas.
I have a list of minor comments that I would like to recommend to revise in the article.
General recommendations
1. Imaging is crucial for focal AP diagnosis, literally one or two figures would be great to
illustrate this disease in comparation with non-localized AP.
2. Study group is quite small and authors mentioned that the larger sample size and multicenter
research work are needed in the future. Could you explain why sample size was so small in
your center? Groups enlargement could make your results more significant or even modify and
specify them.
Abstract
3. There are results of clinical and laboratory signs of focal AP in results-part in the abstract.
Only significant differences are shown, but in conclusion-part differences described as non-
significant.
4. The AP severity comparison in result-part did not note, but described in conclusion. So, your
decision upon severity looks non-obvious.
Background
5. If you place some abbreviations it could be better use them in whole text.
6. [non-mandatory] I suppose it could be better to replace a part about AP in the beginning of
the background part.
Methods
7. All abbreviations should be decoded (e.g. CT, MSAP, SAP).
Results
8. Why authors did not put concrete p-values in results, despite the had already noted in abstract,
for example p-value for abdominal tenderness comparison.
Discussion
9. Authors noted that signs and laboratory indicators of focal AP are not obvious, however
statistically significant differences between groups with focal AP and non-localized AP were
shown in results. How can you explain your decision upon non-obviousness, any criteria? From
my point of view this explanation could make discussion part better.
10. [non-mandatory] The study disadvantages were correctly described, but did you think about
article’s title change into “first or preliminary results”? It is non-mandatory comment, only
humble opinion.
11. I recommend authors extend the abbreviations list to make article clearer.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The clinical characteristics of focal acute pancreatitis based on imaging diagnosis:
comparison with non-localized acute pancreatitis- a preliminary result
Version: 2 Date: 29 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Konstantin A. Lesko
Reviewer's report:
The article dedicated to interesting and important subject - focal acute pancreatitis (AP)- a special
type of acute pancreatitis, which diagnosis is based on image showing a focal mass formation
in the pancreas.
I have a list of minor comments that I would like to recommend to revise in the article.
General recommendations
1. Imaging is crucial for focal AP diagnosis, literally one or two figures would be great to
illustrate this disease in comparation with non-localized AP.
2. Study group is quite small and authors mentioned that the larger sample size and multicenter
research work are needed in the future. Could you explain why sample size was so small in
your center? Groups enlargement could make your results more significant or even modify and
specify them.
Abstract
3. There are results of clinical and laboratory signs of focal AP in results-part in the abstract.
Only significant differences are shown, but in conclusion-part differences described as non-
significant.
4. The AP severity comparison in result-part did not note, but described in conclusion. So, your
decision upon severity looks non-obvious.
Background
5. If you place some abbreviations it could be better use them in whole text.
6. [non-mandatory] I suppose it could be better to replace a part about AP in the beginning of
the background part.
Methods
7. All abbreviations should be decoded (e.g. CT, MSAP, SAP).
Results
8. Why authors did not put concrete p-values in results, despite the had already noted in abstract,
for example p-value for abdominal tenderness comparison.
Discussion
9. Authors noted that signs and laboratory indicators of focal AP are not obvious, however
statistically significant differences between groups with focal AP and non-localized AP were
shown in results. How can you explain your decision upon non-obviousness, any criteria? From
my point of view this explanation could make discussion part better.
10. [non-mandatory] The study disadvantages were correctly described, but did you think about
article’s title change into “first or preliminary results”? It is non-mandatory comment, only
humble opinion.
11. I recommend authors extend the abbreviations list to make article clearer.
assistant