Reviewer's report
Title:Linear Echoendoscope-Guided ERCP for the Diagnosis of Occult Common
Bile Duct Stone
Version: 1Date:25 September 2012
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Important study
Minor points
In introducion, It has been shown that the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis may be
as high as 15.1%, which
includes 1% of patients graded as severe in degree.[9] (THIS IS IN HIGH RISK
PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED SPHINCTER OF ODDI DYSFUNCTION, NOT
BILE DUCT STONES. SHOULD ADD STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT
Moreover, the diagnostic rate is
dramatically reduced for smaller CBD stones (#5 mm). [13] PLEASE STATE THE
RATE.
In Methods section, need to state "GOLD STANDARD" for TRUTH STANDARD
for definition of bile duct stone. What was considered true positive, true negative,
false positive and false negative? Was ERCP truth standard? If so what?
Need to calculate positive and negative predictive values in addition to sensitivity
and specificity
Is this appropriate? Stones seen at EUS can easily be missed by
cholangiography and even balloon extraction.
Otherwise worthwhile paper.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Linear Echoendoscope-Guided ERCP for the Diagnosis of Occult Common
Bile Duct Stone
Version: 1Date:25 September 2012
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Important study
Minor points
In introducion, It has been shown that the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis may be
as high as 15.1%, which
includes 1% of patients graded as severe in degree.[9] (THIS IS IN HIGH RISK
PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED SPHINCTER OF ODDI DYSFUNCTION, NOT
BILE DUCT STONES. SHOULD ADD STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT
Moreover, the diagnostic rate is
dramatically reduced for smaller CBD stones (#5 mm). [13] PLEASE STATE THE
RATE.
In Methods section, need to state "GOLD STANDARD" for TRUTH STANDARD
for definition of bile duct stone. What was considered true positive, true negative,
false positive and false negative? Was ERCP truth standard? If so what?
Need to calculate positive and negative predictive values in addition to sensitivity
and specificity
Is this appropriate? Stones seen at EUS can easily be missed by
cholangiography and even balloon extraction.
Otherwise worthwhile paper.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Linear Echoendoscope-Guided ERCP for the Diagnosis of Occult Common
Bile Duct Stone
Version: 1Date:25 September 2012
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Important study
Minor points
In introducion, It has been shown that the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis may be
as high as 15.1%, which
includes 1% of patients graded as severe in degree.[9] (THIS IS IN HIGH RISK
PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED SPHINCTER OF ODDI DYSFUNCTION, NOT
BILE DUCT STONES. SHOULD ADD STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT
Moreover, the diagnostic rate is
dramatically reduced for smaller CBD stones (#5 mm). [13] PLEASE STATE THE
RATE.
In Methods section, need to state "GOLD STANDARD" for TRUTH STANDARD
for definition of bile duct stone. What was considered true positive, true negative,
false positive and false negative? Was ERCP truth standard? If so what?
Need to calculate positive and negative predictive values in addition to sensitivity
and specificity
Is this appropriate? Stones seen at EUS can easily be missed by
cholangiography and even balloon extraction.
Otherwise worthwhile paper.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
assistant