Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage for Obstructive Jaundice Using Either a 5
Fr or 7 Fr Catheter: a Prospective, Randomized Trial
Version:2Date:30 July 2014
Reviewer: Daiuske Masuda
Reviewer's report:
This article is very interesting in comparison of 5Fr and 7Fr ENBD tube for
efficacy of improving jaundice. So I think it is appropriate for acceptance to BMC
Gastroenterology.
I have some queries.
Major revision
1) There is no significant difference about incidence of post ERCP pancreatitis
(PEP) between 2 groups in this present study. But you insert prophylactic
pancreatic stent (PPS) in 7Fr catheter patients more than in 5Fr catheter patients
so it is thought that incidence of PEP may not be equal between 2 groups
because PPS has an influence on incidence of PEP. Why you inserted PPS
more in 7Fr patients? How is your opinion?
Minor revision
2) You use 2 types catheter pig tail type and alfa type in present study. Is there
no difference about frequency of 2 type catherter between 2 groups?
3) You write that 22 acute cholangitis cases were observed and all cases
recovered from acute cholangitis. Is there anything difference about improvemet
of inflammation?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage for Obstructive Jaundice Using Either a 5
Fr or 7 Fr Catheter: a Prospective, Randomized Trial
Version:2Date:30 July 2014
Reviewer: Daiuske Masuda
Reviewer's report:
This article is very interesting in comparison of 5Fr and 7Fr ENBD tube for
efficacy of improving jaundice. So I think it is appropriate for acceptance to BMC
Gastroenterology.
I have some queries.
Major revision
1) There is no significant difference about incidence of post ERCP pancreatitis
(PEP) between 2 groups in this present study. But you insert prophylactic
pancreatic stent (PPS) in 7Fr catheter patients more than in 5Fr catheter patients
so it is thought that incidence of PEP may not be equal between 2 groups
because PPS has an influence on incidence of PEP. Why you inserted PPS
more in 7Fr patients? How is your opinion?
Minor revision
2) You use 2 types catheter pig tail type and alfa type in present study. Is there
no difference about frequency of 2 type catherter between 2 groups?
3) You write that 22 acute cholangitis cases were observed and all cases
recovered from acute cholangitis. Is there anything difference about improvemet
of inflammation?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage for Obstructive Jaundice Using Either a 5
Fr or 7 Fr Catheter: a Prospective, Randomized Trial
Version:2Date:30 July 2014
Reviewer: Daiuske Masuda
Reviewer's report:
This article is very interesting in comparison of 5Fr and 7Fr ENBD tube for
efficacy of improving jaundice. So I think it is appropriate for acceptance to BMC
Gastroenterology.
I have some queries.
Major revision
1) There is no significant difference about incidence of post ERCP pancreatitis
(PEP) between 2 groups in this present study. But you insert prophylactic
pancreatic stent (PPS) in 7Fr catheter patients more than in 5Fr catheter patients
so it is thought that incidence of PEP may not be equal between 2 groups
because PPS has an influence on incidence of PEP. Why you inserted PPS
more in 7Fr patients? How is your opinion?
Minor revision
2) You use 2 types catheter pig tail type and alfa type in present study. Is there
no difference about frequency of 2 type catherter between 2 groups?
3) You write that 22 acute cholangitis cases were observed and all cases
recovered from acute cholangitis. Is there anything difference about improvemet
of inflammation?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
assistant