Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of intraluminal and intraperitoneal microdialysis in ischemic small
intestine
Version:2Date:28 November 2013
Reviewer: Norbert Cibicek
Reviewer's report:
My comments were summarized in the previous report. Almost all of them were
addressed by the authors, many (but not all) of them in a satisfactory (or correct)
manner and contributed to the increased quality of the paper.
To account for and defend my positions in detail in the rest of the comments and
pointing out all the remaining imperfections found in the present manuscript
would be inadequately time consuming. I know it is details, but nevertheless
wonder why the authors did not take the time to correct all minor spelling errors
(e.g. "spesificity" or "charasteristics") in the tables and/or captions.
I must, however, answer one question posed by the authors regarding data
interpretation. As a clinical biochemist whose primary focus is on clinical data
interpretation, I was not arguing against the difference in the trends observed in
the L/P and L/G ratios (I think I am quite aware of the biochemistry of these
simple metabolites) but rather their variability... Regarding the "specificity" of
glycerol - I was just citing their own article. Glycerol can by no means be
considered a "specific indicator of gut epithelial damage", even though it was
documented to correlate with cell damage in a number of papers. For example,
serum AST is routinely used as an indicator of (and in numerous studies also
correlates with) hepatal tissue damage, but cannot be considered a
"liver-specific" indicator, since it is found in many other tissues including skeletal
or cardiac muscle and its increased serum catalytic concentration can be
observed even following sample haemolysis. Compare this issue with e.g.
oncomarkers on one hand and e.g. cardiac troponine on the other.
Such argumentation and explanation of individual points could go on and on...
Since my previous comments will be published along with the article, I can see
no point in continuing a lengthy discussion and will now opt for publishing the
article. The authors may (and will) get the important feedback by the peers in the
field.
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 that I have no competing interests'.
Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of intraluminal and intraperitoneal microdialysis in ischemic small
intestine
Version:2Date:28 November 2013
Reviewer: Norbert Cibicek
Reviewer's report:
My comments were summarized in the previous report. Almost all of them were
addressed by the authors, many (but not all) of them in a satisfactory (or correct)
manner and contributed to the increased quality of the paper.
To account for and defend my positions in detail in the rest of the comments and
pointing out all the remaining imperfections found in the present manuscript
would be inadequately time consuming. I know it is details, but nevertheless
wonder why the authors did not take the time to correct all minor spelling errors
(e.g. "spesificity" or "charasteristics") in the tables and/or captions.
I must, however, answer one question posed by the authors regarding data
interpretation. As a clinical biochemist whose primary focus is on clinical data
interpretation, I was not arguing against the difference in the trends observed in
the L/P and L/G ratios (I think I am quite aware of the biochemistry of these
simple metabolites) but rather their variability... Regarding the "specificity" of
glycerol - I was just citing their own article. Glycerol can by no means be
considered a "specific indicator of gut epithelial damage", even though it was
documented to correlate with cell damage in a number of papers. For example,
serum AST is routinely used as an indicator of (and in numerous studies also
correlates with) hepatal tissue damage, but cannot be considered a
"liver-specific" indicator, since it is found in many other tissues including skeletal
or cardiac muscle and its increased serum catalytic concentration can be
observed even following sample haemolysis. Compare this issue with e.g.
oncomarkers on one hand and e.g. cardiac troponine on the other.
Such argumentation and explanation of individual points could go on and on...
Since my previous comments will be published along with the article, I can see
no point in continuing a lengthy discussion and will now opt for publishing the
article. The authors may (and will) get the important feedback by the peers in the
field.
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 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
Version:2Date:28 November 2013
Reviewer: Norbert Cibicek
Reviewer's report:
My comments were summarized in the previous report. Almost all of them were
addressed by the authors, many (but not all) of them in a satisfactory (or correct)
manner and contributed to the increased quality of the paper.
To account for and defend my positions in detail in the rest of the comments and
pointing out all the remaining imperfections found in the present manuscript
would be inadequately time consuming. I know it is details, but nevertheless
wonder why the authors did not take the time to correct all minor spelling errors
(e.g. "spesificity" or "charasteristics") in the tables and/or captions.
I must, however, answer one question posed by the authors regarding data
interpretation. As a clinical biochemist whose primary focus is on clinical data
interpretation, I was not arguing against the difference in the trends observed in
the L/P and L/G ratios (I think I am quite aware of the biochemistry of these
simple metabolites) but rather their variability... Regarding the "specificity" of
glycerol - I was just citing their own article. Glycerol can by no means be
considered a "specific indicator of gut epithelial damage", even though it was
documented to correlate with cell damage in a number of papers. For example,
serum AST is routinely used as an indicator of (and in numerous studies also
correlates with) hepatal tissue damage, but cannot be considered a
"liver-specific" indicator, since it is found in many other tissues including skeletal
or cardiac muscle and its increased serum catalytic concentration can be
observed even following sample haemolysis. Compare this issue with e.g.
oncomarkers on one hand and e.g. cardiac troponine on the other.
Such argumentation and explanation of individual points could go on and on...
Since my previous comments will be published along with the article, I can see
no point in continuing a lengthy discussion and will now opt for publishing the
article. The authors may (and will) get the important feedback by the peers in the
field.
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 that I have no competing interests'.
assistant