Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 2Date:10 July 2013
Reviewer: Lorraine chantrill
Reviewer's report:
Minor Discretionary revisions
General comment
Thank you for the changes you have made - these have improved the paper. I
have a small number of suggestions for further improvement.
1. The demographics described in the results section could be presented in table
format
Minor Essential revisions
1.In Materials and Methods you state:
“After an extensive chart review, the final diagnosis was intraductal papillary
mucinous neoplasm.......serous adenocarcinoma(n=1), and undifferentiated
carcinoma (n=1). Patients with missing data (n=135) were excluded from the
analysis."
I would like to see something clearer such as;
X% of cases were confirmed by histopathology or cytology, Y% were diagnosed
on radiological grounds. Of those n=? with a pathological diagnosis, n=? were
adenocarcinoma, n=22 were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm etc. List
them all and then describe if they were evenly distributed between groups A and
B. This could be tabulated if you prefer.
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 I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 2Date:10 July 2013
Reviewer: Lorraine chantrill
Reviewer's report:
Minor Discretionary revisions
General comment
Thank you for the changes you have made - these have improved the paper. I
have a small number of suggestions for further improvement.
1. The demographics described in the results section could be presented in table
format
Minor Essential revisions
1.In Materials and Methods you state:
“After an extensive chart review, the final diagnosis was intraductal papillary
mucinous neoplasm.......serous adenocarcinoma(n=1), and undifferentiated
carcinoma (n=1). Patients with missing data (n=135) were excluded from the
analysis."
I would like to see something clearer such as;
X% of cases were confirmed by histopathology or cytology, Y% were diagnosed
on radiological grounds. Of those n=? with a pathological diagnosis, n=? were
adenocarcinoma, n=22 were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm etc. List
them all and then describe if they were evenly distributed between groups A and
B. This could be tabulated if you prefer.
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 I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Improvement of long-term outcomes in pancreatic cancer within the
gemcitabine era: A collaborative retrospective multicenter clinical review of 1,082
patients
Version: 2Date:10 July 2013
Reviewer: Lorraine chantrill
Reviewer's report:
Minor Discretionary revisions
General comment
Thank you for the changes you have made - these have improved the paper. I
have a small number of suggestions for further improvement.
1. The demographics described in the results section could be presented in table
format
Minor Essential revisions
1.In Materials and Methods you state:
“After an extensive chart review, the final diagnosis was intraductal papillary
mucinous neoplasm.......serous adenocarcinoma(n=1), and undifferentiated
carcinoma (n=1). Patients with missing data (n=135) were excluded from the
analysis."
I would like to see something clearer such as;
X% of cases were confirmed by histopathology or cytology, Y% were diagnosed
on radiological grounds. Of those n=? with a pathological diagnosis, n=? were
adenocarcinoma, n=22 were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm etc. List
them all and then describe if they were evenly distributed between groups A and
B. This could be tabulated if you prefer.
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 I have no competing interests
assistant