Reviewer's report
Title:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 1Date:13 March 2008
Reviewer: Igor Sukhotnik
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the authors evaluate the effect of mast cell stabilizer , H2
blocker or mast cell degranulator on intestinal recovery and survival rate after
intestinal ischemia-reperfusion in a rat model.
Major concerns:
1. A limitation of this study is that it is more illustrative than quantitative. Effect of
described factors on intestinal recovery as well as on lung histology was only
illustrative. The intestinal mucosal parameters (like mucosal weight, mucosal
DNA and protein content, villus height, crypt depth, enterocyte proliferation,
enterocyte apoptosis etc) were not measured. Most of the pictures do not provide
any important information and should be omitted.
2. In my opinion, the paper suffers from insufficient data to fully examine the
hypothesis or to draw conclusions. The conclusion that IR and treatment with CS
and kotifen affect liver is based on evaluation of ALT and AST as well as their
effect on myocard is based on evaluation of LDH and CK. This is not enough.
3. It is very difficult to explain a discrepancy between unchanged intestinal injury
score and 50% mortality rate after 75 min of ischemia.
Minor concerns
Abstract
1. This is well-written.
Introduction
This section is generally well-written with logical development. A few changes
suggested.
1. "Cordeiro and his colleagues" change to "Cordeiro and colleagues"
2. The statement: "The effects of administration of mast cell…. on IIRI…" is
unclear. Do the authors mean on intestinal recovery following IIRI or in
preventing damage caused by IIRI?
Methods
1. Study design should be concentrated in one place. The statement that 48 rats
are divided into IV groups is described in one section, the other statement about
120 rats that were divided into 5 groups are described in the other section.
2. Provide please reference for Chiu's method.
Discussion
The Discussion is a little rambling. Nevertheless, the overall message of the
paper is important although the manuscript has insufficient data to fully draw the
final conclusions.
1. Statement that intestinal mucosa is one of the best recovered organs in 24
hours after IIRI is doubtful. The recovery requires usually 48-72 hours.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
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:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 1Date:13 March 2008
Reviewer: Igor Sukhotnik
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the authors evaluate the effect of mast cell stabilizer , H2
blocker or mast cell degranulator on intestinal recovery and survival rate after
intestinal ischemia-reperfusion in a rat model.
Major concerns:
1. A limitation of this study is that it is more illustrative than quantitative. Effect of
described factors on intestinal recovery as well as on lung histology was only
illustrative. The intestinal mucosal parameters (like mucosal weight, mucosal
DNA and protein content, villus height, crypt depth, enterocyte proliferation,
enterocyte apoptosis etc) were not measured. Most of the pictures do not provide
any important information and should be omitted.
2. In my opinion, the paper suffers from insufficient data to fully examine the
hypothesis or to draw conclusions. The conclusion that IR and treatment with CS
and kotifen affect liver is based on evaluation of ALT and AST as well as their
effect on myocard is based on evaluation of LDH and CK. This is not enough.
3. It is very difficult to explain a discrepancy between unchanged intestinal injury
score and 50% mortality rate after 75 min of ischemia.
Minor concerns
Abstract
1. This is well-written.
Introduction
This section is generally well-written with logical development. A few changes
suggested.
1. "Cordeiro and his colleagues" change to "Cordeiro and colleagues"
2. The statement: "The effects of administration of mast cell…. on IIRI…" is
unclear. Do the authors mean on intestinal recovery following IIRI or in
preventing damage caused by IIRI?
Methods
1. Study design should be concentrated in one place. The statement that 48 rats
are divided into IV groups is described in one section, the other statement about
120 rats that were divided into 5 groups are described in the other section.
2. Provide please reference for Chiu's method.
Discussion
The Discussion is a little rambling. Nevertheless, the overall message of the
paper is important although the manuscript has insufficient data to fully draw the
final conclusions.
1. Statement that intestinal mucosa is one of the best recovered organs in 24
hours after IIRI is doubtful. The recovery requires usually 48-72 hours.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
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:Influence of Ketotifen, Cromolyn Sodium, and Compound 48/80 on the
survival rates after intestinal ischemia reperfusion injury in rats
Version: 1Date:13 March 2008
Reviewer: Igor Sukhotnik
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the authors evaluate the effect of mast cell stabilizer , H2
blocker or mast cell degranulator on intestinal recovery and survival rate after
intestinal ischemia-reperfusion in a rat model.
Major concerns:
1. A limitation of this study is that it is more illustrative than quantitative. Effect of
described factors on intestinal recovery as well as on lung histology was only
illustrative. The intestinal mucosal parameters (like mucosal weight, mucosal
DNA and protein content, villus height, crypt depth, enterocyte proliferation,
enterocyte apoptosis etc) were not measured. Most of the pictures do not provide
any important information and should be omitted.
2. In my opinion, the paper suffers from insufficient data to fully examine the
hypothesis or to draw conclusions. The conclusion that IR and treatment with CS
and kotifen affect liver is based on evaluation of ALT and AST as well as their
effect on myocard is based on evaluation of LDH and CK. This is not enough.
3. It is very difficult to explain a discrepancy between unchanged intestinal injury
score and 50% mortality rate after 75 min of ischemia.
Minor concerns
Abstract
1. This is well-written.
Introduction
This section is generally well-written with logical development. A few changes
suggested.
1. "Cordeiro and his colleagues" change to "Cordeiro and colleagues"
2. The statement: "The effects of administration of mast cell…. on IIRI…" is
unclear. Do the authors mean on intestinal recovery following IIRI or in
preventing damage caused by IIRI?
Methods
1. Study design should be concentrated in one place. The statement that 48 rats
are divided into IV groups is described in one section, the other statement about
120 rats that were divided into 5 groups are described in the other section.
2. Provide please reference for Chiu's method.
Discussion
The Discussion is a little rambling. Nevertheless, the overall message of the
paper is important although the manuscript has insufficient data to fully draw the
final conclusions.
1. Statement that intestinal mucosa is one of the best recovered organs in 24
hours after IIRI is doubtful. The recovery requires usually 48-72 hours.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
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