Reviewer's report
Title:1HNMR-based Metabonomic profile of Rats with Experimental Acute
Pancreatitis: a controlled experiment
Version:1Date:23 March 2014
Reviewer: Qingchuan Zhao
Reviewer's report:
This study compared the metabolic profile between rat with AP and sham
laparotomy. The results provide the information of a different metabolic profile
between the two groups.
Major comments
First, it is not explained in the text what is the meaning of investigating those
parameters in early stage of AP. The author stated that it may “allow early
diagnosis”, however, compared with serum amylase, those biomarkers may be
cumbersome to use in diagnosing AP and their accuracies are not investigated.
Additionally, why the authors consider these parameters are helpful for
investigating the pathogenesis of AP or indentifying potential therapeutic targets?
Whether the changed metabolic profile correlated with the severity of AP? These
questions are not explained and make the whole manuscript unintelligible.
Second, it is reported that the blood samples were obtained 12 hours after AP
induction. What is the reason that the 12 hours is chose? What about the
biomarkers levels in an even earlier stage of AP?
Third, the metabolic disturbance detected in the AP group may not be specific for
AP. It is possible that the changed metabolic profile is caused by excessive
inflammation rather than pancreatitis.
Minor comments
It is not a randomized controlled trial. RCT is used to test the efficacy or
effectiveness of various types of medical intervention within a patient population.
Spelling mistakes such as “the two groups shew a jumbly distribution”,
“Comparisons of small molecule metabolites clevels between AP and SO group”
The “Compared to sham operation group (SO)” in the tables should be described
in the foot note.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:1HNMR-based Metabonomic profile of Rats with Experimental Acute
Pancreatitis: a controlled experiment
Version:1Date:23 March 2014
Reviewer: Qingchuan Zhao
Reviewer's report:
This study compared the metabolic profile between rat with AP and sham
laparotomy. The results provide the information of a different metabolic profile
between the two groups.
Major comments
First, it is not explained in the text what is the meaning of investigating those
parameters in early stage of AP. The author stated that it may “allow early
diagnosis”, however, compared with serum amylase, those biomarkers may be
cumbersome to use in diagnosing AP and their accuracies are not investigated.
Additionally, why the authors consider these parameters are helpful for
investigating the pathogenesis of AP or indentifying potential therapeutic targets?
Whether the changed metabolic profile correlated with the severity of AP? These
questions are not explained and make the whole manuscript unintelligible.
Second, it is reported that the blood samples were obtained 12 hours after AP
induction. What is the reason that the 12 hours is chose? What about the
biomarkers levels in an even earlier stage of AP?
Third, the metabolic disturbance detected in the AP group may not be specific for
AP. It is possible that the changed metabolic profile is caused by excessive
inflammation rather than pancreatitis.
Minor comments
It is not a randomized controlled trial. RCT is used to test the efficacy or
effectiveness of various types of medical intervention within a patient population.
Spelling mistakes such as “the two groups shew a jumbly distribution”,
“Comparisons of small molecule metabolites clevels between AP and SO group”
The “Compared to sham operation group (SO)” in the tables should be described
in the foot note.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:1HNMR-based Metabonomic profile of Rats with Experimental Acute
Pancreatitis: a controlled experiment
Version:1Date:23 March 2014
Reviewer: Qingchuan Zhao
Reviewer's report:
This study compared the metabolic profile between rat with AP and sham
laparotomy. The results provide the information of a different metabolic profile
between the two groups.
Major comments
First, it is not explained in the text what is the meaning of investigating those
parameters in early stage of AP. The author stated that it may “allow early
diagnosis”, however, compared with serum amylase, those biomarkers may be
cumbersome to use in diagnosing AP and their accuracies are not investigated.
Additionally, why the authors consider these parameters are helpful for
investigating the pathogenesis of AP or indentifying potential therapeutic targets?
Whether the changed metabolic profile correlated with the severity of AP? These
questions are not explained and make the whole manuscript unintelligible.
Second, it is reported that the blood samples were obtained 12 hours after AP
induction. What is the reason that the 12 hours is chose? What about the
biomarkers levels in an even earlier stage of AP?
Third, the metabolic disturbance detected in the AP group may not be specific for
AP. It is possible that the changed metabolic profile is caused by excessive
inflammation rather than pancreatitis.
Minor comments
It is not a randomized controlled trial. RCT is used to test the efficacy or
effectiveness of various types of medical intervention within a patient population.
Spelling mistakes such as “the two groups shew a jumbly distribution”,
“Comparisons of small molecule metabolites clevels between AP and SO group”
The “Compared to sham operation group (SO)” in the tables should be described
in the foot note.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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