Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Associated with Mortality Risk for Malignant Colonic Obstruction in
Elderly Patients
Version:2Date:11 February 2014
Reviewer: Preet Paul Singh
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of the points - but still ignored some others.
These 2 issues remain and should be included in the revised manuscript -
From my previous review:
2. Table 4 - what is p-vale of '0'? Please report actual p-value. Its unclear what is
the
reference category for the multivariate odds ratio? This needs to be clearly
reported.
Also the odds ratio for peritonitis is less than 1 which means having peritonitis is
protective in terms of mortality, which is clearly a mistake.
ANSWER:When pvalue is mentioned as 0, we mean p<0.01. According to the
reviewer’s comment, the odds ratio for peritonitis is less than 1 which means
having
peritonitis is protective in terms of mortality, which is clearly a mistake.Sorry for
our
negligence. We have carefully checked the statistics and we have revised
it.(page 24)
COMMENT -
- p-value has been corrected. OR for peritoninis is now correct.
- reference category for the multivariate odds ratio is still not reported in Table
4B. Please understand that the odds ration means nothing as long as we dont
understand what 2 groups are being compared.
Please address these 2 points as discussed above.
3. As all patients failed conservative management - I do not think "emergent"
surgical
intervention is still correct. Clearly the patients who developed peritonitis went
onto
emergent surgery, but not ones who were otherwise stable and did not have
resolution
of bowel obstruction at 72 hrs. Also what happened to patients who presented
with
signs of peritonitis - were they also conservatively managed or taken directly to
surgery? Patient selection is very confusing. It may be better to say, that this
study
looks at subset of patients who underwent urgent surgery for failure of medical
management of bowel obstruction.
ANSWER:We agree the reviewer’s comment opinion. According to the reviewer’s
comment, we revised it. (page 5).
COMMENT - The authors have changed that on page 5 - but the abstract and
other places in the mansucript, they are still using the term "emergent surgery".
Please make it uniform.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Associated with Mortality Risk for Malignant Colonic Obstruction in
Elderly Patients
Version:2Date:11 February 2014
Reviewer: Preet Paul Singh
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of the points - but still ignored some others.
These 2 issues remain and should be included in the revised manuscript -
From my previous review:
2. Table 4 - what is p-vale of '0'? Please report actual p-value. Its unclear what is
the
reference category for the multivariate odds ratio? This needs to be clearly
reported.
Also the odds ratio for peritonitis is less than 1 which means having peritonitis is
protective in terms of mortality, which is clearly a mistake.
ANSWER:When pvalue is mentioned as 0, we mean p<0.01. According to the
reviewer’s comment, the odds ratio for peritonitis is less than 1 which means
having
peritonitis is protective in terms of mortality, which is clearly a mistake.Sorry for
our
negligence. We have carefully checked the statistics and we have revised
it.(page 24)
COMMENT -
- p-value has been corrected. OR for peritoninis is now correct.
- reference category for the multivariate odds ratio is still not reported in Table
4B. Please understand that the odds ration means nothing as long as we dont
understand what 2 groups are being compared.
Please address these 2 points as discussed above.
3. As all patients failed conservative management - I do not think "emergent"
surgical
intervention is still correct. Clearly the patients who developed peritonitis went
onto
emergent surgery, but not ones who were otherwise stable and did not have
resolution
of bowel obstruction at 72 hrs. Also what happened to patients who presented
with
signs of peritonitis - were they also conservatively managed or taken directly to
surgery? Patient selection is very confusing. It may be better to say, that this
study
looks at subset of patients who underwent urgent surgery for failure of medical
management of bowel obstruction.
ANSWER:We agree the reviewer’s comment opinion. According to the reviewer’s
comment, we revised it. (page 5).
COMMENT - The authors have changed that on page 5 - but the abstract and
other places in the mansucript, they are still using the term "emergent surgery".
Please make it uniform.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Factors Associated with Mortality Risk for Malignant Colonic Obstruction in
Elderly Patients
Version:2Date:11 February 2014
Reviewer: Preet Paul Singh
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed most of the points - but still ignored some others.
These 2 issues remain and should be included in the revised manuscript -
From my previous review:
2. Table 4 - what is p-vale of '0'? Please report actual p-value. Its unclear what is
the
reference category for the multivariate odds ratio? This needs to be clearly
reported.
Also the odds ratio for peritonitis is less than 1 which means having peritonitis is
protective in terms of mortality, which is clearly a mistake.
ANSWER:When pvalue is mentioned as 0, we mean p<0.01. According to the
reviewer’s comment, the odds ratio for peritonitis is less than 1 which means
having
peritonitis is protective in terms of mortality, which is clearly a mistake.Sorry for
our
negligence. We have carefully checked the statistics and we have revised
it.(page 24)
COMMENT -
- p-value has been corrected. OR for peritoninis is now correct.
- reference category for the multivariate odds ratio is still not reported in Table
4B. Please understand that the odds ration means nothing as long as we dont
understand what 2 groups are being compared.
Please address these 2 points as discussed above.
3. As all patients failed conservative management - I do not think "emergent"
surgical
intervention is still correct. Clearly the patients who developed peritonitis went
onto
emergent surgery, but not ones who were otherwise stable and did not have
resolution
of bowel obstruction at 72 hrs. Also what happened to patients who presented
with
signs of peritonitis - were they also conservatively managed or taken directly to
surgery? Patient selection is very confusing. It may be better to say, that this
study
looks at subset of patients who underwent urgent surgery for failure of medical
management of bowel obstruction.
ANSWER:We agree the reviewer’s comment opinion. According to the reviewer’s
comment, we revised it. (page 5).
COMMENT - The authors have changed that on page 5 - but the abstract and
other places in the mansucript, they are still using the term "emergent surgery".
Please make it uniform.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant