Reviewer's report
Title:Safety of pull-type and push-type percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis
Version: 1Date:19 November 2010
Reviewer: Ruud Wiggenraad
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study, comparing two methods of PEG placement, both
performed by the gastroenterologist. Significantly more complications are found
with the push type of tube placement.
Drawbacks of this paper are the rather small number of patients and the
retrospective nature of the study.
However it is a compact, clearly written, article dealing with an important question
from everyday practice. Although the results of such a small study have to
interpreted carefully, they may influence decisions in the clinic, are interesting
and worth publishing.
However I have some questions/remarks I would like the authors to respond to
(they are all discretionary revisions)
1. The authors collected 57 patients in three years who received
chemo-radiotherapy for head and neck or esophageal cancer. This is a rather
small number of patients for an academic center and it is likely that in that period
more patients received that treatment. How were these patients selected for PEG
placement? Were other ways of tube feeding used in your hospital for this
category of patients?
2. Please clarify the description of the push method, because it is not completely
clear how the stomach is localized.
3. Interventional radiologists can do PEG (or PUG) placement under ultrasound
guidance. Please discus this method. Would this be an improvement over your
push method or do you expect a comparable complication rate? Is it possible that
some other patients in your hospital were referred to the radiologist?
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:Safety of pull-type and push-type percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis
Version: 1Date:19 November 2010
Reviewer: Ruud Wiggenraad
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study, comparing two methods of PEG placement, both
performed by the gastroenterologist. Significantly more complications are found
with the push type of tube placement.
Drawbacks of this paper are the rather small number of patients and the
retrospective nature of the study.
However it is a compact, clearly written, article dealing with an important question
from everyday practice. Although the results of such a small study have to
interpreted carefully, they may influence decisions in the clinic, are interesting
and worth publishing.
However I have some questions/remarks I would like the authors to respond to
(they are all discretionary revisions)
1. The authors collected 57 patients in three years who received
chemo-radiotherapy for head and neck or esophageal cancer. This is a rather
small number of patients for an academic center and it is likely that in that period
more patients received that treatment. How were these patients selected for PEG
placement? Were other ways of tube feeding used in your hospital for this
category of patients?
2. Please clarify the description of the push method, because it is not completely
clear how the stomach is localized.
3. Interventional radiologists can do PEG (or PUG) placement under ultrasound
guidance. Please discus this method. Would this be an improvement over your
push method or do you expect a comparable complication rate? Is it possible that
some other patients in your hospital were referred to the radiologist?
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:Safety of pull-type and push-type percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy
tubes in oncology patients: a retrospective analysis
Version: 1Date:19 November 2010
Reviewer: Ruud Wiggenraad
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study, comparing two methods of PEG placement, both
performed by the gastroenterologist. Significantly more complications are found
with the push type of tube placement.
Drawbacks of this paper are the rather small number of patients and the
retrospective nature of the study.
However it is a compact, clearly written, article dealing with an important question
from everyday practice. Although the results of such a small study have to
interpreted carefully, they may influence decisions in the clinic, are interesting
and worth publishing.
However I have some questions/remarks I would like the authors to respond to
(they are all discretionary revisions)
1. The authors collected 57 patients in three years who received
chemo-radiotherapy for head and neck or esophageal cancer. This is a rather
small number of patients for an academic center and it is likely that in that period
more patients received that treatment. How were these patients selected for PEG
placement? Were other ways of tube feeding used in your hospital for this
category of patients?
2. Please clarify the description of the push method, because it is not completely
clear how the stomach is localized.
3. Interventional radiologists can do PEG (or PUG) placement under ultrasound
guidance. Please discus this method. Would this be an improvement over your
push method or do you expect a comparable complication rate? Is it possible that
some other patients in your hospital were referred to the radiologist?
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