Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials
Version: 1Date:18 July 2010
Reviewer: Ray Garry
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written meta-analysis of an important topic. You have followed
standard Cochrane protocols and I think this paper would make a useful additio
to the literature
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials
Version: 1Date:18 July 2010
Reviewer: Ray Garry
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written meta-analysis of an important topic. You have followed
standard Cochrane protocols and I think this paper would make a useful additio
to the literature
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials
Version: 1Date:18 July 2010
Reviewer: Ray Garry
Reviewer's report:
This is a well written meta-analysis of an important topic. You have followed
standard Cochrane protocols and I think this paper would make a useful additio
to the literature
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant