Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with stents: A
systematic evaluation of the reported variables for clinical outcome
Version: 2Date:26 January 2009
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reviewed some of the literature on stenting of gastric outlet
obstruction. The specific aim of their study was to find out if sufficient data were
given on clinical effects of stenting and whether or not quality of life had been
assessed. The review is well designed and the conclusions are probably valid.
However, there are a few points that need some explanation to render this
manuscript understandable to the reader.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors chose to include only studies with 15 or more subjects. What was
the rationale for this choice? Please specify why 15 and not 10 or 5 or any other
number of subjects was chosen as numerical limit for inclusion. For example, the
choice of 15 excluded the only RCT on this subject.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. It is possible that the majority of readers are familiar with the Karnofsky
performance scale, which measures physical impairment and not health related
quality of life, but I think this should be explained to the reader. It is perhaps not
necessary to cite the original paper, but at least the nature of this scale should be
mentioned.
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:Endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with stents: A
systematic evaluation of the reported variables for clinical outcome
Version: 2Date:26 January 2009
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reviewed some of the literature on stenting of gastric outlet
obstruction. The specific aim of their study was to find out if sufficient data were
given on clinical effects of stenting and whether or not quality of life had been
assessed. The review is well designed and the conclusions are probably valid.
However, there are a few points that need some explanation to render this
manuscript understandable to the reader.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors chose to include only studies with 15 or more subjects. What was
the rationale for this choice? Please specify why 15 and not 10 or 5 or any other
number of subjects was chosen as numerical limit for inclusion. For example, the
choice of 15 excluded the only RCT on this subject.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. It is possible that the majority of readers are familiar with the Karnofsky
performance scale, which measures physical impairment and not health related
quality of life, but I think this should be explained to the reader. It is perhaps not
necessary to cite the original paper, but at least the nature of this scale should be
mentioned.
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:Endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with stents: A
systematic evaluation of the reported variables for clinical outcome
Version: 2Date:26 January 2009
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reviewed some of the literature on stenting of gastric outlet
obstruction. The specific aim of their study was to find out if sufficient data were
given on clinical effects of stenting and whether or not quality of life had been
assessed. The review is well designed and the conclusions are probably valid.
However, there are a few points that need some explanation to render this
manuscript understandable to the reader.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The authors chose to include only studies with 15 or more subjects. What was
the rationale for this choice? Please specify why 15 and not 10 or 5 or any other
number of subjects was chosen as numerical limit for inclusion. For example, the
choice of 15 excluded the only RCT on this subject.
Minor Essential Revisions
2. It is possible that the majority of readers are familiar with the Karnofsky
performance scale, which measures physical impairment and not health related
quality of life, but I think this should be explained to the reader. It is perhaps not
necessary to cite the original paper, but at least the nature of this scale should be
mentioned.
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