Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:23 April 2008
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
Introduction
1.- It is not true that there is no evidence based data with respect to ecographic
follow up. There are at least 6 papers as cited by the authors with enough
evidencies.
2.- What do you mean by “follow up studies in representative population samples
have not been published? Which are presentative population?
Methods
1.- Who performed the ultrasonographic studies? Were they trained radiologists?
2.- You had initially 34 subjects with polyps. From them 3 were operated and
therefore, only 22 of 31 patients (71%) could be followed. This is a small number
of patients compared to other reports.
Results
1.- It is interesting to note that only 1 subject had both gallstones and polyps,
while 188 had gallstones and 34 polyps alone.
2.- Figure 1 is very difficult to understand. You should done a better figure.
3.- Figure 2 should be eliminated because it is too large and is incorporated in
the text.
a.- What do you mean by “ no measurement of polyps in 1996 = 3 cases.
b.- What do you mean by “cholecystitis”?
c.- What do you mean by “polyps mainly detected? They were not seen on 1996?
4.- How do you explain the appearance of 5 cases with gallstones? What
happened with the polyps?
5.- Which were the histopathological findings of the gallbladder mucosa in the
operated patients?
Discussion
1.- Why do you insist in the “representative population”? All studies, including
yours, have followed only the patients with polyps and not the entire group. Did
you perform an ecographic follow up of the initial 2415 subjects?
2.- You are repeating results in discussion (page 1e) Eliminate it.
References
1.- Last pages are missing in references 4, 5, 7.
Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:23 April 2008
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
Introduction
1.- It is not true that there is no evidence based data with respect to ecographic
follow up. There are at least 6 papers as cited by the authors with enough
evidencies.
2.- What do you mean by “follow up studies in representative population samples
have not been published? Which are presentative population?
Methods
1.- Who performed the ultrasonographic studies? Were they trained radiologists?
2.- You had initially 34 subjects with polyps. From them 3 were operated and
therefore, only 22 of 31 patients (71%) could be followed. This is a small number
of patients compared to other reports.
Results
1.- It is interesting to note that only 1 subject had both gallstones and polyps,
while 188 had gallstones and 34 polyps alone.
2.- Figure 1 is very difficult to understand. You should done a better figure.
3.- Figure 2 should be eliminated because it is too large and is incorporated in
the text.
a.- What do you mean by “ no measurement of polyps in 1996 = 3 cases.
b.- What do you mean by “cholecystitis”?
c.- What do you mean by “polyps mainly detected? They were not seen on 1996?
4.- How do you explain the appearance of 5 cases with gallstones? What
happened with the polyps?
5.- Which were the histopathological findings of the gallbladder mucosa in the
operated patients?
Discussion
1.- Why do you insist in the “representative population”? All studies, including
yours, have followed only the patients with polyps and not the entire group. Did
you perform an ecographic follow up of the initial 2415 subjects?
2.- You are repeating results in discussion (page 1e) Eliminate it.
References
1.- Last pages are missing in references 4, 5, 7.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:23 April 2008
Reviewer: Attila Csendes
Reviewer's report:
Introduction
1.- It is not true that there is no evidence based data with respect to ecographic
follow up. There are at least 6 papers as cited by the authors with enough
evidencies.
2.- What do you mean by “follow up studies in representative population samples
have not been published? Which are presentative population?
Methods
1.- Who performed the ultrasonographic studies? Were they trained radiologists?
2.- You had initially 34 subjects with polyps. From them 3 were operated and
therefore, only 22 of 31 patients (71%) could be followed. This is a small number
of patients compared to other reports.
Results
1.- It is interesting to note that only 1 subject had both gallstones and polyps,
while 188 had gallstones and 34 polyps alone.
2.- Figure 1 is very difficult to understand. You should done a better figure.
3.- Figure 2 should be eliminated because it is too large and is incorporated in
the text.
a.- What do you mean by “ no measurement of polyps in 1996 = 3 cases.
b.- What do you mean by “cholecystitis”?
c.- What do you mean by “polyps mainly detected? They were not seen on 1996?
4.- How do you explain the appearance of 5 cases with gallstones? What
happened with the polyps?
5.- Which were the histopathological findings of the gallbladder mucosa in the
operated patients?
Discussion
1.- Why do you insist in the “representative population”? All studies, including
yours, have followed only the patients with polyps and not the entire group. Did
you perform an ecographic follow up of the initial 2415 subjects?
2.- You are repeating results in discussion (page 1e) Eliminate it.
References
1.- Last pages are missing in references 4, 5, 7.
assistant