Reviewer’s report
Title:  Minimally Invasive Drainage versus Open Surgical Debridement in SAP/SMAP –  A network 
meta-analysis
Version: 0 Date: 04 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Thandassery Ragesh Babu
Reviewer's report:
1.Article needs to corrected grammatically as there are number of areas requiring spaces before  
parenthesis, after word extra spacing etc. Please review them thoroughly
2.Please provide a list of acronyms as it makes it hard to follow without them 
3.Provide definitions of the procedures: MID, ESD, PCD, MIS, ESD, CST, OSD 
4.Authors did not mention about I2 or T to demonstrate the heterogeneity in the result. This is  
important.
5.Subgroup analyses that authors introduced in the discussion are not mentioned in the result  
section. Need more explanation and discussion on subgroup analysis. Only chinese vs english  
article is not enough. I2 and T will give more info if the results have high heterogeneity and  
more subgroup and sensitivity analyses needed. Table 1 number of MODS events is N/A in  
most of the studies limiting its application 
Supplement section has been reviewed.
6.Limitation section needs more elaboration. While authors mention the limitation of Chinese and  
English language, low sample size in other studies, methodological bias, there needs to be  
elaborated further. Specifically the inclusion of patients and use of strict criteria with time line  
of treatment (early vs. late) is important
7.Is there a bias due to inclusion of patient which are predominately Severe acute pancreatitis and  
application of CST for these group might not be appropriate. It is unclear as to the number of  
with predominant severe acute pancreatitis or just more Mod severe?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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:
Needs some language corrections before being published
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: 04 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Thandassery Ragesh Babu
Reviewer's report:
1.Article needs to corrected grammatically as there are number of areas requiring spaces before  
parenthesis, after word extra spacing etc. Please review them thoroughly
2.Please provide a list of acronyms as it makes it hard to follow without them 
3.Provide definitions of the procedures: MID, ESD, PCD, MIS, ESD, CST, OSD 
4.Authors did not mention about I2 or T to demonstrate the heterogeneity in the result. This is  
important.
5.Subgroup analyses that authors introduced in the discussion are not mentioned in the result  
section. Need more explanation and discussion on subgroup analysis. Only chinese vs english  
article is not enough. I2 and T will give more info if the results have high heterogeneity and  
more subgroup and sensitivity analyses needed. Table 1 number of MODS events is N/A in  
most of the studies limiting its application 
Supplement section has been reviewed.
6.Limitation section needs more elaboration. While authors mention the limitation of Chinese and  
English language, low sample size in other studies, methodological bias, there needs to be  
elaborated further. Specifically the inclusion of patients and use of strict criteria with time line  
of treatment (early vs. late) is important
7.Is there a bias due to inclusion of patient which are predominately Severe acute pancreatitis and  
application of CST for these group might not be appropriate. It is unclear as to the number of  
with predominant severe acute pancreatitis or just more Mod severe?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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:
Needs some language corrections before being published
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: 04 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Thandassery Ragesh Babu
Reviewer's report:
1.Article needs to corrected grammatically as there are number of areas requiring spaces before  
parenthesis, after word extra spacing etc. Please review them thoroughly
2.Please provide a list of acronyms as it makes it hard to follow without them 
3.Provide definitions of the procedures: MID, ESD, PCD, MIS, ESD, CST, OSD 
4.Authors did not mention about I2 or T to demonstrate the heterogeneity in the result. This is  
important.
5.Subgroup analyses that authors introduced in the discussion are not mentioned in the result  
section. Need more explanation and discussion on subgroup analysis. Only chinese vs english  
article is not enough. I2 and T will give more info if the results have high heterogeneity and  
more subgroup and sensitivity analyses needed. Table 1 number of MODS events is N/A in  
most of the studies limiting its application 
Supplement section has been reviewed.
6.Limitation section needs more elaboration. While authors mention the limitation of Chinese and  
English language, low sample size in other studies, methodological bias, there needs to be  
elaborated further. Specifically the inclusion of patients and use of strict criteria with time line  
of treatment (early vs. late) is important
7.Is there a bias due to inclusion of patient which are predominately Severe acute pancreatitis and  
application of CST for these group might not be appropriate. It is unclear as to the number of  
with predominant severe acute pancreatitis or just more Mod severe?
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
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:
Needs some language corrections before being published
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