Reviewer's report
Title:Detection of serum MMP-7 and MMP-9 in cholangiocarcinoma patients:
evaluation of diagnostic accuracy
Version: 2Date:26 February 2009
Reviewer: Gülsüm Özlem O Elpek
Reviewer's report:
Review,
This paper describes whether the serum levels of MMP-7 and MMP-9 can
discriminate cholangiocarcinoma (CC) from benign biliary tract diseases (BBTD)
in comparison to CEA and CA19-9. It appears that among these tumour markers
only the serum MMP-7 levels was significantly higher in patients with CC than in
patients with BBTD. It is concluded that serum MMP-7 measurement could be a
valuable diagnostic marker in the differential diagnosis of CC form BBTD.
It is basically a well written paper of an interesting study. Following comments
can be made:
1- In the conclusion part of the abstract section (p2, line 4) the statement ‘’Serum
MMP-7 appears to be a valuable diagnostic marker for cholangiocarcinoma.’’
must be changed as ‘’Serum MMP-7 appears to be a valuable diagnostic marker
in the discrimination of cholangiocarcinoma from benign biliary tract disease.’’ As
pointed by the authors in the background (p4, line 21-22) as well as in the
discussion sections (p11, line 10-11) MMP-7 levels might be significantly
elevated in ovarian and colorectal cancers. Therefore it is not possible to
discriminate these tumours from CC according to serum MMP-7 levels. Moreover
the aim and the design of the present study are intended for the evaluation of
MMP-7 levels in the differential diagnosis of CC from BBTD.
2- Some data in the results section are also repeated in the tables or illustrations.
Only important observations should be emphasized or summarized in the text.
Therefore this section must be simplified.
3- In the discussion section the statements in p9 and in lines 9,10 and 11 should
be omitted. Because similar statements has been used in the background
section.
4- The English needs some brushing up with regard to grammar and syntax.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Detection of serum MMP-7 and MMP-9 in cholangiocarcinoma patients:
evaluation of diagnostic accuracy
Version: 2Date:26 February 2009
Reviewer: Gülsüm Özlem O Elpek
Reviewer's report:
Review,
This paper describes whether the serum levels of MMP-7 and MMP-9 can
discriminate cholangiocarcinoma (CC) from benign biliary tract diseases (BBTD)
in comparison to CEA and CA19-9. It appears that among these tumour markers
only the serum MMP-7 levels was significantly higher in patients with CC than in
patients with BBTD. It is concluded that serum MMP-7 measurement could be a
valuable diagnostic marker in the differential diagnosis of CC form BBTD.
It is basically a well written paper of an interesting study. Following comments
can be made:
1- In the conclusion part of the abstract section (p2, line 4) the statement ‘’Serum
MMP-7 appears to be a valuable diagnostic marker for cholangiocarcinoma.’’
must be changed as ‘’Serum MMP-7 appears to be a valuable diagnostic marker
in the discrimination of cholangiocarcinoma from benign biliary tract disease.’’ As
pointed by the authors in the background (p4, line 21-22) as well as in the
discussion sections (p11, line 10-11) MMP-7 levels might be significantly
elevated in ovarian and colorectal cancers. Therefore it is not possible to
discriminate these tumours from CC according to serum MMP-7 levels. Moreover
the aim and the design of the present study are intended for the evaluation of
MMP-7 levels in the differential diagnosis of CC from BBTD.
2- Some data in the results section are also repeated in the tables or illustrations.
Only important observations should be emphasized or summarized in the text.
Therefore this section must be simplified.
3- In the discussion section the statements in p9 and in lines 9,10 and 11 should
be omitted. Because similar statements has been used in the background
section.
4- The English needs some brushing up with regard to grammar and syntax.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Detection of serum MMP-7 and MMP-9 in cholangiocarcinoma patients:
evaluation of diagnostic accuracy
Version: 2Date:26 February 2009
Reviewer: Gülsüm Özlem O Elpek
Reviewer's report:
Review,
This paper describes whether the serum levels of MMP-7 and MMP-9 can
discriminate cholangiocarcinoma (CC) from benign biliary tract diseases (BBTD)
in comparison to CEA and CA19-9. It appears that among these tumour markers
only the serum MMP-7 levels was significantly higher in patients with CC than in
patients with BBTD. It is concluded that serum MMP-7 measurement could be a
valuable diagnostic marker in the differential diagnosis of CC form BBTD.
It is basically a well written paper of an interesting study. Following comments
can be made:
1- In the conclusion part of the abstract section (p2, line 4) the statement ‘’Serum
MMP-7 appears to be a valuable diagnostic marker for cholangiocarcinoma.’’
must be changed as ‘’Serum MMP-7 appears to be a valuable diagnostic marker
in the discrimination of cholangiocarcinoma from benign biliary tract disease.’’ As
pointed by the authors in the background (p4, line 21-22) as well as in the
discussion sections (p11, line 10-11) MMP-7 levels might be significantly
elevated in ovarian and colorectal cancers. Therefore it is not possible to
discriminate these tumours from CC according to serum MMP-7 levels. Moreover
the aim and the design of the present study are intended for the evaluation of
MMP-7 levels in the differential diagnosis of CC from BBTD.
2- Some data in the results section are also repeated in the tables or illustrations.
Only important observations should be emphasized or summarized in the text.
Therefore this section must be simplified.
3- In the discussion section the statements in p9 and in lines 9,10 and 11 should
be omitted. Because similar statements has been used in the background
section.
4- The English needs some brushing up with regard to grammar and syntax.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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