Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:7 June 2009
Reviewer: alexander L gerbes
Reviewer's report:
This ms. deals with bleeding from ligation ulcers and early variceal rebleeding
after ligation,respectively and provides informations with potentially great clinical
impact.
However,important informations are missing and terminology used needs to be
clarified and/or changed.
Major points:
1)A number of pts. had ligation for primary prophylaxis.In these pts it is not
correct to report REbleeding. This needs to be corrected in the title,abstract etc.
Furthermore,authors should state,how many ligation sessions were analyzed for
primary and for secondary prevention,respectively.
2)Information is required on details of the treatment schedule (eg use of
PPI,cf.Shaheen NJ,Hepatology 2005),duration of hospital stay,duration of
follow-up,endoscopy intervals to determine drop-off of ligation bands.
3)Time interval between ligation and drop-off of bands was recorded but is not
presented adequately - this could be an interesting piece of information.
Minor points:
1)Terminology should be clarified and/or corrected:
I guess bleeding events were classified as due to ligation ulcers or as variceal
(re)bleeding due to other causes. This should be phrased as simple as possible
and with consistent wording throughout the ms and tables.
Bleeding presumably was not from recurrent varices ,but rather variceal
rebleeding.
When discussing their findings compared to other publications the authors should
be aware that some of these studies investigated only primary or secondary
prophylaxis,respectively and that the follow-up periods (by the length of which the
(re)bleeding frequency should be influenced) may have been quite different from
the present study.
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:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:7 June 2009
Reviewer: alexander L gerbes
Reviewer's report:
This ms. deals with bleeding from ligation ulcers and early variceal rebleeding
after ligation,respectively and provides informations with potentially great clinical
impact.
However,important informations are missing and terminology used needs to be
clarified and/or changed.
Major points:
1)A number of pts. had ligation for primary prophylaxis.In these pts it is not
correct to report REbleeding. This needs to be corrected in the title,abstract etc.
Furthermore,authors should state,how many ligation sessions were analyzed for
primary and for secondary prevention,respectively.
2)Information is required on details of the treatment schedule (eg use of
PPI,cf.Shaheen NJ,Hepatology 2005),duration of hospital stay,duration of
follow-up,endoscopy intervals to determine drop-off of ligation bands.
3)Time interval between ligation and drop-off of bands was recorded but is not
presented adequately - this could be an interesting piece of information.
Minor points:
1)Terminology should be clarified and/or corrected:
I guess bleeding events were classified as due to ligation ulcers or as variceal
(re)bleeding due to other causes. This should be phrased as simple as possible
and with consistent wording throughout the ms and tables.
Bleeding presumably was not from recurrent varices ,but rather variceal
rebleeding.
When discussing their findings compared to other publications the authors should
be aware that some of these studies investigated only primary or secondary
prophylaxis,respectively and that the follow-up periods (by the length of which the
(re)bleeding frequency should be influenced) may have been quite different from
the present study.
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:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:7 June 2009
Reviewer: alexander L gerbes
Reviewer's report:
This ms. deals with bleeding from ligation ulcers and early variceal rebleeding
after ligation,respectively and provides informations with potentially great clinical
impact.
However,important informations are missing and terminology used needs to be
clarified and/or changed.
Major points:
1)A number of pts. had ligation for primary prophylaxis.In these pts it is not
correct to report REbleeding. This needs to be corrected in the title,abstract etc.
Furthermore,authors should state,how many ligation sessions were analyzed for
primary and for secondary prevention,respectively.
2)Information is required on details of the treatment schedule (eg use of
PPI,cf.Shaheen NJ,Hepatology 2005),duration of hospital stay,duration of
follow-up,endoscopy intervals to determine drop-off of ligation bands.
3)Time interval between ligation and drop-off of bands was recorded but is not
presented adequately - this could be an interesting piece of information.
Minor points:
1)Terminology should be clarified and/or corrected:
I guess bleeding events were classified as due to ligation ulcers or as variceal
(re)bleeding due to other causes. This should be phrased as simple as possible
and with consistent wording throughout the ms and tables.
Bleeding presumably was not from recurrent varices ,but rather variceal
rebleeding.
When discussing their findings compared to other publications the authors should
be aware that some of these studies investigated only primary or secondary
prophylaxis,respectively and that the follow-up periods (by the length of which the
(re)bleeding frequency should be influenced) may have been quite different from
the present study.
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