Reviewer's report
Title:Caustic ingestion in adults: The role of age in predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:14 February 2011
Reviewer: Burak Tander
Reviewer's report:
This is a nice study with excellent statistical evaluation. It is undoubtly worth
publishing, still there is some points to revise:
1. There are some reports considering the unnecessity of early endoscopic
examination in patients with caustic ingestion in children as well as in adults. As
the authors mentioned, some of them are very recent studies (e.g. Bicakci U et al
in 2010).
2. It is stated in the body of the text that the youngest age is 17 and the oldest
one is 107 years old; but in Table 2, the age range is between 26 and 77 years.
3. It is interesting that no single patient is between age of 45 and 68 according to
the Table 2!!
4. As seen in Table 2, the authors examined duodenum in most of the patients.
They also found the most severe damage in the esophagus in many cases. It
seems that the authors passed the endoscope through the injured esophageal
segment in many cases. This maneuver must have been quite dangerous.
5. Why did the authors not administrate antibiotics to all of the patients?
6. Replace “Kaplan-Miere” with “Kaplan-Meier”
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:Caustic ingestion in adults: The role of age in predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:14 February 2011
Reviewer: Burak Tander
Reviewer's report:
This is a nice study with excellent statistical evaluation. It is undoubtly worth
publishing, still there is some points to revise:
1. There are some reports considering the unnecessity of early endoscopic
examination in patients with caustic ingestion in children as well as in adults. As
the authors mentioned, some of them are very recent studies (e.g. Bicakci U et al
in 2010).
2. It is stated in the body of the text that the youngest age is 17 and the oldest
one is 107 years old; but in Table 2, the age range is between 26 and 77 years.
3. It is interesting that no single patient is between age of 45 and 68 according to
the Table 2!!
4. As seen in Table 2, the authors examined duodenum in most of the patients.
They also found the most severe damage in the esophagus in many cases. It
seems that the authors passed the endoscope through the injured esophageal
segment in many cases. This maneuver must have been quite dangerous.
5. Why did the authors not administrate antibiotics to all of the patients?
6. Replace “Kaplan-Miere” with “Kaplan-Meier”
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:Caustic ingestion in adults: The role of age in predicting outcome
Version: 1Date:14 February 2011
Reviewer: Burak Tander
Reviewer's report:
This is a nice study with excellent statistical evaluation. It is undoubtly worth
publishing, still there is some points to revise:
1. There are some reports considering the unnecessity of early endoscopic
examination in patients with caustic ingestion in children as well as in adults. As
the authors mentioned, some of them are very recent studies (e.g. Bicakci U et al
in 2010).
2. It is stated in the body of the text that the youngest age is 17 and the oldest
one is 107 years old; but in Table 2, the age range is between 26 and 77 years.
3. It is interesting that no single patient is between age of 45 and 68 according to
the Table 2!!
4. As seen in Table 2, the authors examined duodenum in most of the patients.
They also found the most severe damage in the esophagus in many cases. It
seems that the authors passed the endoscope through the injured esophageal
segment in many cases. This maneuver must have been quite dangerous.
5. Why did the authors not administrate antibiotics to all of the patients?
6. Replace “Kaplan-Miere” with “Kaplan-Meier”
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