Reviewer's report
Title:Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version:2Date:21 May 2014
Reviewer: Takaya Shimura
Reviewer's report:
This paper is a meta-analysis about the results of covered vs. uncovered SEMS
for GOO.
This review article is well summarized and this information may be useful for
general practice. However, in recent, there is a similar meta-analysis. I thus ask
authors to amend something as shown below.
1. Similar meta-analysis has been recently published (Int J Med Sci. 2013 Apr
27;10(7):825-35). Although this meta-analysis used only prospective study and
RCT, conclusion is the same. Lee’s (2009) and Kim’s (2010) studies were used
in this meta-analysis, which were also used in your meta-analysis, but
meta-analysis using only prospective study is easier and more feasible for
interpretation… I ask you to compare your analysis with this meta-analysis and
discuss about that.
2. Please describe the kind and number of cancer in your using studies.
3. Chemotherapeutic drugs has been recently developed for malignancies with
GOO including gastric cancer. Description about the presence or absence of
chemotherapy after SEMS in each study would provide useful information for the
readers if those data are available.
4. Why don’t you use the retrospective study of Gastrointest Endosc. 2007
May;65(6):782-7? Is this study already duplicate in your analysis?
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:Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version:2Date:21 May 2014
Reviewer: Takaya Shimura
Reviewer's report:
This paper is a meta-analysis about the results of covered vs. uncovered SEMS
for GOO.
This review article is well summarized and this information may be useful for
general practice. However, in recent, there is a similar meta-analysis. I thus ask
authors to amend something as shown below.
1. Similar meta-analysis has been recently published (Int J Med Sci. 2013 Apr
27;10(7):825-35). Although this meta-analysis used only prospective study and
RCT, conclusion is the same. Lee’s (2009) and Kim’s (2010) studies were used
in this meta-analysis, which were also used in your meta-analysis, but
meta-analysis using only prospective study is easier and more feasible for
interpretation… I ask you to compare your analysis with this meta-analysis and
discuss about that.
2. Please describe the kind and number of cancer in your using studies.
3. Chemotherapeutic drugs has been recently developed for malignancies with
GOO including gastric cancer. Description about the presence or absence of
chemotherapy after SEMS in each study would provide useful information for the
readers if those data are available.
4. Why don’t you use the retrospective study of Gastrointest Endosc. 2007
May;65(6):782-7? Is this study already duplicate in your analysis?
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:Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version:2Date:21 May 2014
Reviewer: Takaya Shimura
Reviewer's report:
This paper is a meta-analysis about the results of covered vs. uncovered SEMS
for GOO.
This review article is well summarized and this information may be useful for
general practice. However, in recent, there is a similar meta-analysis. I thus ask
authors to amend something as shown below.
1. Similar meta-analysis has been recently published (Int J Med Sci. 2013 Apr
27;10(7):825-35). Although this meta-analysis used only prospective study and
RCT, conclusion is the same. Lee’s (2009) and Kim’s (2010) studies were used
in this meta-analysis, which were also used in your meta-analysis, but
meta-analysis using only prospective study is easier and more feasible for
interpretation… I ask you to compare your analysis with this meta-analysis and
discuss about that.
2. Please describe the kind and number of cancer in your using studies.
3. Chemotherapeutic drugs has been recently developed for malignancies with
GOO including gastric cancer. Description about the presence or absence of
chemotherapy after SEMS in each study would provide useful information for the
readers if those data are available.
4. Why don’t you use the retrospective study of Gastrointest Endosc. 2007
May;65(6):782-7? Is this study already duplicate in your analysis?
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