Reviewer's report
Title:A prospective, multi center, randomized clinical study to compare the
efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin-Sulbactam 3 days in
the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infections. (T.E.A.
Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-Sulbactam)
Version: 2Date:28 December 2010
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have substantially improved their protocol. The overall design and
outcome measures are now better described. However, some problems yet
remain:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The primary response variable is now defined as "To compare the failure rate
of short therapy with Ertapenem and with AS in localized IAI". Please specify the
meaning of failure rate here. Is it "failure" + "late failure" (according to definitions
given in Data collection) or is it "failure" only? If it is "failure" only, why isn't "late
failure" a secondary end-point?
2. The information about the efficacy of AS on that the authors have determined
the sample size should be included in the protocol. If this was a retrospective
analysis of 300 cases in their department this needs to be mentioned as a source
for the estimated failure rate of 30%.
3. The manuscript still needs a thorough linguistic revision. There are numerous
syntax errors, inappropriate use of definite article, and past or present tense
when future tense should be used.
Minor Essential Revisions
4. The abstract should include information about the primary end-point, therapy
in the two treatment arms, and their duration. The trial registration number and
the appropriate web site should be included instead of the text "TRIAL
REGISTRATION NUMBER".
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:A prospective, multi center, randomized clinical study to compare the
efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin-Sulbactam 3 days in
the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infections. (T.E.A.
Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-Sulbactam)
Version: 2Date:28 December 2010
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have substantially improved their protocol. The overall design and
outcome measures are now better described. However, some problems yet
remain:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The primary response variable is now defined as "To compare the failure rate
of short therapy with Ertapenem and with AS in localized IAI". Please specify the
meaning of failure rate here. Is it "failure" + "late failure" (according to definitions
given in Data collection) or is it "failure" only? If it is "failure" only, why isn't "late
failure" a secondary end-point?
2. The information about the efficacy of AS on that the authors have determined
the sample size should be included in the protocol. If this was a retrospective
analysis of 300 cases in their department this needs to be mentioned as a source
for the estimated failure rate of 30%.
3. The manuscript still needs a thorough linguistic revision. There are numerous
syntax errors, inappropriate use of definite article, and past or present tense
when future tense should be used.
Minor Essential Revisions
4. The abstract should include information about the primary end-point, therapy
in the two treatment arms, and their duration. The trial registration number and
the appropriate web site should be included instead of the text "TRIAL
REGISTRATION NUMBER".
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:A prospective, multi center, randomized clinical study to compare the
efficacy and safety of Ertapenem 3 days versus Ampicillin-Sulbactam 3 days in
the treatment of localized community acquired intra-abdominal infections. (T.E.A.
Study: Three days Ertapenem vs three days Ampicillin-Sulbactam)
Version: 2Date:28 December 2010
Reviewer: Greger Lindberg
Reviewer's report:
The authors have substantially improved their protocol. The overall design and
outcome measures are now better described. However, some problems yet
remain:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. The primary response variable is now defined as "To compare the failure rate
of short therapy with Ertapenem and with AS in localized IAI". Please specify the
meaning of failure rate here. Is it "failure" + "late failure" (according to definitions
given in Data collection) or is it "failure" only? If it is "failure" only, why isn't "late
failure" a secondary end-point?
2. The information about the efficacy of AS on that the authors have determined
the sample size should be included in the protocol. If this was a retrospective
analysis of 300 cases in their department this needs to be mentioned as a source
for the estimated failure rate of 30%.
3. The manuscript still needs a thorough linguistic revision. There are numerous
syntax errors, inappropriate use of definite article, and past or present tense
when future tense should be used.
Minor Essential Revisions
4. The abstract should include information about the primary end-point, therapy
in the two treatment arms, and their duration. The trial registration number and
the appropriate web site should be included instead of the text "TRIAL
REGISTRATION NUMBER".
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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