Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic Accuracy of Cyst Fluid Amphiregulin in Pancreatic Cysts
Version: 1Date:30 September 2011
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
This paper evaluates the use of cyst fluid amphiregulin levels in the diagnosis of
pancreatic cysts.
Comments:
1. The question is an important one as the number of patients with cystic lesions
in the pancreas is rising and tests which can differentiate benign and malignant
cysts are needed.
2. What were the inclusion criteria for the study – were all patients with cysts
considered or were there other criteria such as cyst size or suspicious features?
The authors must have had some criteria to ensure an appropriate range of
cases.
3. It is not entirely clear how the cyst fluid samples were obtained – can the
authors describe how the cyst fluid was obtained – all EUS or some at surgery?
Also how much fluid was required/harvested?
4. Was the ELISA fully validated?
5. The main drawback is the size of the patient sample and the mixed patient
population – but this is probably acceptable for a pilot feasibility study – did the
authors perform a sample size calculation for this study?
6. What was the sensitivity/specificity of CEA for this cohort of patients?
7. The authors should stress that this test needs further validation in larger
prospective series.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Diagnostic Accuracy of Cyst Fluid Amphiregulin in Pancreatic Cysts
Version: 1Date:30 September 2011
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
This paper evaluates the use of cyst fluid amphiregulin levels in the diagnosis of
pancreatic cysts.
Comments:
1. The question is an important one as the number of patients with cystic lesions
in the pancreas is rising and tests which can differentiate benign and malignant
cysts are needed.
2. What were the inclusion criteria for the study – were all patients with cysts
considered or were there other criteria such as cyst size or suspicious features?
The authors must have had some criteria to ensure an appropriate range of
cases.
3. It is not entirely clear how the cyst fluid samples were obtained – can the
authors describe how the cyst fluid was obtained – all EUS or some at surgery?
Also how much fluid was required/harvested?
4. Was the ELISA fully validated?
5. The main drawback is the size of the patient sample and the mixed patient
population – but this is probably acceptable for a pilot feasibility study – did the
authors perform a sample size calculation for this study?
6. What was the sensitivity/specificity of CEA for this cohort of patients?
7. The authors should stress that this test needs further validation in larger
prospective series.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Diagnostic Accuracy of Cyst Fluid Amphiregulin in Pancreatic Cysts
Version: 1Date:30 September 2011
Reviewer: Paula Ghaneh
Reviewer's report:
This paper evaluates the use of cyst fluid amphiregulin levels in the diagnosis of
pancreatic cysts.
Comments:
1. The question is an important one as the number of patients with cystic lesions
in the pancreas is rising and tests which can differentiate benign and malignant
cysts are needed.
2. What were the inclusion criteria for the study – were all patients with cysts
considered or were there other criteria such as cyst size or suspicious features?
The authors must have had some criteria to ensure an appropriate range of
cases.
3. It is not entirely clear how the cyst fluid samples were obtained – can the
authors describe how the cyst fluid was obtained – all EUS or some at surgery?
Also how much fluid was required/harvested?
4. Was the ELISA fully validated?
5. The main drawback is the size of the patient sample and the mixed patient
population – but this is probably acceptable for a pilot feasibility study – did the
authors perform a sample size calculation for this study?
6. What was the sensitivity/specificity of CEA for this cohort of patients?
7. The authors should stress that this test needs further validation in larger
prospective series.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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