Reviewer’s report
Title:  Minimally Invasive Drainage versus Open Surgical Debridement in SAP/SMAP –  A network 
meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Praveen Kumar
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an  
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting  
materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
Major correction: 
The introduction looks overtly simple and lack important info. Information like - what are the current  
consensus on the topic?; what are the controversies are required to attract readers attention.
The author in the methodology section mention that "analysis, so the IRB approval and informed  
consent is unnecessary."
But at the end of manuscript in the "Ethics approval and consent to participate" mentions as  
"This study was approved by the institutional review board at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing  
Medical University." Why is there a discrepancy within the same manuscript.  
Author writes: We did a network meta-analysis using a frequentist model. 
Why was frequentist model chosen and why not Bayesian network meta-analysis model? Did the  
author cross check their result with Bayesian modelling? Secondly the author needs to mention whether  
they used  a  arm  based  network  meta-analysis  approach  or  contrast  based  network  meta-analysis  
approach. 
What  was  the  software/  programming  interface  used  for  network  meta-analysis/  pair-wise  meta-
analysis? What are the statistical model used/ evaluated in network meta-analysis. No details have been  
mentioned in this regard. Without mentioning how will the reader able to replicate the results.? What  
about the results of inconsistency analysis of network meta-analysis? What were the model diagnostics  
of the final developed network meta-analysis model? 
Is there any specific reason why risk ratio was chosen for reporting instead of odds  ratio. 
In the network plot, the author needs to explain what the circle stands for? What the line stands for?  
What does the thickness of lines stand for? The sample size is not represented in the network plot, (size  
of circle generally stands for the sample size of intervention). The author needs to clarify it.
Looks like you have done your analysis using R statistical software. What package did you use? What  
were the key settings? 
Why was pairwise meta-analysis also conducted over and above the network meta-analysis. Only the  
network  meta-analysis  would  have  been  suffice  and  would  improve  the  interpretability  of  the  
manuscript. The mentioning of both pair wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis creates a lot of  
confusion with the readers. 
Minor correction:
Author writes: In Atlanta Criteria revision of 2012 , AP was classified severity as mild, moderately  
severe, or severe.
Correct  to:  In  Atlanta  Criteria  revision  of  2012  ,  AP was  classified  based  on  severity  as  mild,  
moderately severe, or severe.
Author writes: Therefore, in this review, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and  
efficacy of MID and OSD.
Please mention what kind of meta-analysis was planned and conducted. 
Paragraph on "IRB approval and informed consent"
Instead of describing in so much detail (which is infact not necessary), the author can cut short this  
paragraph into a single line in the standard format. 
Author writes: We included trials comparing ....as any type of MID or OSD).
This format of writing is not clear. Mentioning of the word "versus" multiple times also does not look  
professional. Consider reframing the sentence. Also maker sure that the abbreviation are all expanded  
in the first instance. 
Author writes: in these studies were categorize as late.
Correct to: in these studies were categorized as late.
Author  writes:  MODS  is  the  presence  of  altered  organ  function  cannot  be  maintained  without  
intervention.  
Correct to: MODS is the presence of altered organ function which cannot be maintained without  
intervention.  
Author writes: We can learn about treatment MID versus treatment PSD via treatment CST
The author can consider reframing the sentence to more scientific language. 
Author writes: At last, thirteen studies were included in this study. 
The author can consider reframing the sentence to more scientific language. 
Author writes: Though ten studies were from China, two were from Holland and one was from Finland,  
there were six articles published in English (Table 1).
Correction: Grammatical error and english needs to be reframed in this sentence. 
Author writes: While performing this meta-analysis, we find some randomized controlled trials on this  
topic, but the sample size is not large enough. 
Correct to: While performing this meta-analysis, we found few randomized controlled trials on this  
topic, but the sample size is not large enough. 
Author writes: As we know, there are several previously published meta-analysis were published to  
compare the MID with open approach
Correct to: Published word is repeated consecutively in short intervals. Reframe sentence without  
grammatical error. 
Author writes: In another study by Sunil Shenvi. 
Correct to: In another study by Sunil Shenvi et al., 
Author writes: In this meta-analysis, we get the conclusion that patients with SAP/MSAP treated with  
MID would get better.... 
Grammatical error. Please consider reframing the sentence. 
Author writes: But, in this study, there are some aspects which should be improved. 
It is not a interventional study in which improvement could be made. Please mention the points as  
limitation of the study. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title:  Minimally Invasive Drainage versus Open Surgical Debridement in SAP/SMAP –  A network 
meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Praveen Kumar
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an  
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting  
materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
Major correction: 
The introduction looks overtly simple and lack important info. Information like - what are the current  
consensus on the topic?; what are the controversies are required to attract readers attention.
The author in the methodology section mention that "analysis, so the IRB approval and informed  
consent is unnecessary."
But at the end of manuscript in the "Ethics approval and consent to participate" mentions as  
"This study was approved by the institutional review board at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing  
Medical University." Why is there a discrepancy within the same manuscript.  
Author writes: We did a network meta-analysis using a frequentist model. 
Why was frequentist model chosen and why not Bayesian network meta-analysis model? Did the  
author cross check their result with Bayesian modelling? Secondly the author needs to mention whether  
they used  a  arm  based  network  meta-analysis  approach  or  contrast  based  network  meta-analysis  
approach. 
What  was  the  software/  programming  interface  used  for  network  meta-analysis/  pair-wise  meta-
analysis? What are the statistical model used/ evaluated in network meta-analysis. No details have been  
mentioned in this regard. Without mentioning how will the reader able to replicate the results.? What  
about the results of inconsistency analysis of network meta-analysis? What were the model diagnostics  
of the final developed network meta-analysis model? 
Is there any specific reason why risk ratio was chosen for reporting instead of odds  ratio. 
In the network plot, the author needs to explain what the circle stands for? What the line stands for?  
What does the thickness of lines stand for? The sample size is not represented in the network plot, (size  
of circle generally stands for the sample size of intervention). The author needs to clarify it.
Looks like you have done your analysis using R statistical software. What package did you use? What  
were the key settings? 
Why was pairwise meta-analysis also conducted over and above the network meta-analysis. Only the  
network  meta-analysis  would  have  been  suffice  and  would  improve  the  interpretability  of  the  
manuscript. The mentioning of both pair wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis creates a lot of  
confusion with the readers. 
Minor correction:
Author writes: In Atlanta Criteria revision of 2012 , AP was classified severity as mild, moderately  
severe, or severe.
Correct  to:  In  Atlanta  Criteria  revision  of  2012  ,  AP was  classified  based  on  severity  as  mild,  
moderately severe, or severe.
Author writes: Therefore, in this review, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and  
efficacy of MID and OSD.
Please mention what kind of meta-analysis was planned and conducted. 
Paragraph on "IRB approval and informed consent"
Instead of describing in so much detail (which is infact not necessary), the author can cut short this  
paragraph into a single line in the standard format. 
Author writes: We included trials comparing ....as any type of MID or OSD).
This format of writing is not clear. Mentioning of the word "versus" multiple times also does not look  
professional. Consider reframing the sentence. Also maker sure that the abbreviation are all expanded  
in the first instance. 
Author writes: in these studies were categorize as late.
Correct to: in these studies were categorized as late.
Author  writes:  MODS  is  the  presence  of  altered  organ  function  cannot  be  maintained  without  
intervention.  
Correct to: MODS is the presence of altered organ function which cannot be maintained without  
intervention.  
Author writes: We can learn about treatment MID versus treatment PSD via treatment CST
The author can consider reframing the sentence to more scientific language. 
Author writes: At last, thirteen studies were included in this study. 
The author can consider reframing the sentence to more scientific language. 
Author writes: Though ten studies were from China, two were from Holland and one was from Finland,  
there were six articles published in English (Table 1).
Correction: Grammatical error and english needs to be reframed in this sentence. 
Author writes: While performing this meta-analysis, we find some randomized controlled trials on this  
topic, but the sample size is not large enough. 
Correct to: While performing this meta-analysis, we found few randomized controlled trials on this  
topic, but the sample size is not large enough. 
Author writes: As we know, there are several previously published meta-analysis were published to  
compare the MID with open approach
Correct to: Published word is repeated consecutively in short intervals. Reframe sentence without  
grammatical error. 
Author writes: In another study by Sunil Shenvi. 
Correct to: In another study by Sunil Shenvi et al., 
Author writes: In this meta-analysis, we get the conclusion that patients with SAP/MSAP treated with  
MID would get better.... 
Grammatical error. Please consider reframing the sentence. 
Author writes: But, in this study, there are some aspects which should be improved. 
It is not a interventional study in which improvement could be made. Please mention the points as  
limitation of the study. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title:  Minimally Invasive Drainage versus Open Surgical Debridement in SAP/SMAP –  A network 
meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jun 2019
Reviewer: Praveen Kumar
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an  
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting  
materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
Major correction: 
The introduction looks overtly simple and lack important info. Information like - what are the current  
consensus on the topic?; what are the controversies are required to attract readers attention.
The author in the methodology section mention that "analysis, so the IRB approval and informed  
consent is unnecessary."
But at the end of manuscript in the "Ethics approval and consent to participate" mentions as  
"This study was approved by the institutional review board at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing  
Medical University." Why is there a discrepancy within the same manuscript.  
Author writes: We did a network meta-analysis using a frequentist model. 
Why was frequentist model chosen and why not Bayesian network meta-analysis model? Did the  
author cross check their result with Bayesian modelling? Secondly the author needs to mention whether  
they used  a  arm  based  network  meta-analysis  approach  or  contrast  based  network  meta-analysis  
approach. 
What  was  the  software/  programming  interface  used  for  network  meta-analysis/  pair-wise  meta-
analysis? What are the statistical model used/ evaluated in network meta-analysis. No details have been  
mentioned in this regard. Without mentioning how will the reader able to replicate the results.? What  
about the results of inconsistency analysis of network meta-analysis? What were the model diagnostics  
of the final developed network meta-analysis model? 
Is there any specific reason why risk ratio was chosen for reporting instead of odds  ratio. 
In the network plot, the author needs to explain what the circle stands for? What the line stands for?  
What does the thickness of lines stand for? The sample size is not represented in the network plot, (size  
of circle generally stands for the sample size of intervention). The author needs to clarify it.
Looks like you have done your analysis using R statistical software. What package did you use? What  
were the key settings? 
Why was pairwise meta-analysis also conducted over and above the network meta-analysis. Only the  
network  meta-analysis  would  have  been  suffice  and  would  improve  the  interpretability  of  the  
manuscript. The mentioning of both pair wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis creates a lot of  
confusion with the readers. 
Minor correction:
Author writes: In Atlanta Criteria revision of 2012 , AP was classified severity as mild, moderately  
severe, or severe.
Correct  to:  In  Atlanta  Criteria  revision  of  2012  ,  AP was  classified  based  on  severity  as  mild,  
moderately severe, or severe.
Author writes: Therefore, in this review, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and  
efficacy of MID and OSD.
Please mention what kind of meta-analysis was planned and conducted. 
Paragraph on "IRB approval and informed consent"
Instead of describing in so much detail (which is infact not necessary), the author can cut short this  
paragraph into a single line in the standard format. 
Author writes: We included trials comparing ....as any type of MID or OSD).
This format of writing is not clear. Mentioning of the word "versus" multiple times also does not look  
professional. Consider reframing the sentence. Also maker sure that the abbreviation are all expanded  
in the first instance. 
Author writes: in these studies were categorize as late.
Correct to: in these studies were categorized as late.
Author  writes:  MODS  is  the  presence  of  altered  organ  function  cannot  be  maintained  without  
intervention.  
Correct to: MODS is the presence of altered organ function which cannot be maintained without  
intervention.  
Author writes: We can learn about treatment MID versus treatment PSD via treatment CST
The author can consider reframing the sentence to more scientific language. 
Author writes: At last, thirteen studies were included in this study. 
The author can consider reframing the sentence to more scientific language. 
Author writes: Though ten studies were from China, two were from Holland and one was from Finland,  
there were six articles published in English (Table 1).
Correction: Grammatical error and english needs to be reframed in this sentence. 
Author writes: While performing this meta-analysis, we find some randomized controlled trials on this  
topic, but the sample size is not large enough. 
Correct to: While performing this meta-analysis, we found few randomized controlled trials on this  
topic, but the sample size is not large enough. 
Author writes: As we know, there are several previously published meta-analysis were published to  
compare the MID with open approach
Correct to: Published word is repeated consecutively in short intervals. Reframe sentence without  
grammatical error. 
Author writes: In another study by Sunil Shenvi. 
Correct to: In another study by Sunil Shenvi et al., 
Author writes: In this meta-analysis, we get the conclusion that patients with SAP/MSAP treated with  
MID would get better.... 
Grammatical error. Please consider reframing the sentence. 
Author writes: But, in this study, there are some aspects which should be improved. 
It is not a interventional study in which improvement could be made. Please mention the points as  
limitation of the study. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional  
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If  
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my  
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not  
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant