Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of intraluminal and intraperitoneal microdialysis in ischemic small
intestine - Clinical feasibility of equilibration dialysis.
Version: 1Date:29 May 2013
Reviewer: Erik Solligard
Reviewer's report:
The role of the intestine in organ failure is a interesting field of research. To
detect intestinal hypoperfusion is difficult, and the development of useful tools for
monitoring the intestine is important. Microdialysis may be such a tool, and one
question being asked for several years is should one monitor inside or outside of
the intestinal lumen.The aim and background of the study comparing the luminal
vs the serosal side of the intestine is relevant and appropriate. As they state,
there are plentuful of experimental studies, but scarse with clinical studies.
But, I'm more reluctant to the second aim of the study, at least how it is
presented in this manuscript; "a pilot material with peri- and post-operative
monitoring of the intestinal region with equilibration dialysis".
Major Compulsory revisions
The equilibration dialysis part of the paper is interesting. The method is described
earlier, and several studies has been performed. But in this paper this section is
not well designed, nor well written.
The principle of the method is not described, the placement of the sacs are not
possible to reproduce based on your description, and you do not describe the
method of colection of the samples etc. The number of patients is small.
The study is not designed to answer your questions about the usefullness of this
method in clinical monitoring.
My request is to take out this topic from the paper, redesign the study and
publish as a separate paper.
Minor Essential Revisions
The total gut ischemia model ex vivo is not well described in the methods
section. Please describe the surgical methods in brief, the handling of the
intestinal specimen, placement of the probes etc. An illustration could do good. in
the Microdialysis - ex vivo validation, you only describe the technical parts om the
technique. What about recovery?
Discretionary revisions
Did you use the best ten minute fraction in each interval or did you make any
mean values of the whole interval? Please describe.
Table 1; what is "n"? It is not readable.
Figure 2 is then not relevant.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of intraluminal and intraperitoneal microdialysis in ischemic small
intestine - Clinical feasibility of equilibration dialysis.
Version: 1Date:29 May 2013
Reviewer: Erik Solligard
Reviewer's report:
The role of the intestine in organ failure is a interesting field of research. To
detect intestinal hypoperfusion is difficult, and the development of useful tools for
monitoring the intestine is important. Microdialysis may be such a tool, and one
question being asked for several years is should one monitor inside or outside of
the intestinal lumen.The aim and background of the study comparing the luminal
vs the serosal side of the intestine is relevant and appropriate. As they state,
there are plentuful of experimental studies, but scarse with clinical studies.
But, I'm more reluctant to the second aim of the study, at least how it is
presented in this manuscript; "a pilot material with peri- and post-operative
monitoring of the intestinal region with equilibration dialysis".
Major Compulsory revisions
The equilibration dialysis part of the paper is interesting. The method is described
earlier, and several studies has been performed. But in this paper this section is
not well designed, nor well written.
The principle of the method is not described, the placement of the sacs are not
possible to reproduce based on your description, and you do not describe the
method of colection of the samples etc. The number of patients is small.
The study is not designed to answer your questions about the usefullness of this
method in clinical monitoring.
My request is to take out this topic from the paper, redesign the study and
publish as a separate paper.
Minor Essential Revisions
The total gut ischemia model ex vivo is not well described in the methods
section. Please describe the surgical methods in brief, the handling of the
intestinal specimen, placement of the probes etc. An illustration could do good. in
the Microdialysis - ex vivo validation, you only describe the technical parts om the
technique. What about recovery?
Discretionary revisions
Did you use the best ten minute fraction in each interval or did you make any
mean values of the whole interval? Please describe.
Table 1; what is "n"? It is not readable.
Figure 2 is then not relevant.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of intraluminal and intraperitoneal microdialysis in ischemic small
intestine - Clinical feasibility of equilibration dialysis.
Version: 1Date:29 May 2013
Reviewer: Erik Solligard
Reviewer's report:
The role of the intestine in organ failure is a interesting field of research. To
detect intestinal hypoperfusion is difficult, and the development of useful tools for
monitoring the intestine is important. Microdialysis may be such a tool, and one
question being asked for several years is should one monitor inside or outside of
the intestinal lumen.The aim and background of the study comparing the luminal
vs the serosal side of the intestine is relevant and appropriate. As they state,
there are plentuful of experimental studies, but scarse with clinical studies.
But, I'm more reluctant to the second aim of the study, at least how it is
presented in this manuscript; "a pilot material with peri- and post-operative
monitoring of the intestinal region with equilibration dialysis".
Major Compulsory revisions
The equilibration dialysis part of the paper is interesting. The method is described
earlier, and several studies has been performed. But in this paper this section is
not well designed, nor well written.
The principle of the method is not described, the placement of the sacs are not
possible to reproduce based on your description, and you do not describe the
method of colection of the samples etc. The number of patients is small.
The study is not designed to answer your questions about the usefullness of this
method in clinical monitoring.
My request is to take out this topic from the paper, redesign the study and
publish as a separate paper.
Minor Essential Revisions
The total gut ischemia model ex vivo is not well described in the methods
section. Please describe the surgical methods in brief, the handling of the
intestinal specimen, placement of the probes etc. An illustration could do good. in
the Microdialysis - ex vivo validation, you only describe the technical parts om the
technique. What about recovery?
Discretionary revisions
Did you use the best ten minute fraction in each interval or did you make any
mean values of the whole interval? Please describe.
Table 1; what is "n"? It is not readable.
Figure 2 is then not relevant.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 that I have no competing interests
assistant