Reviewer's report
Title:With the assistance of a "Rusch" intubation stylet for facilitating insertion of
a nasogastric tube in anesthesized patients: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:10 June 2012
Reviewer: Wei-Zen Sun
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-conducted randomized controlled trial to compare "Rusch
intubation stylet facilitated NG tube insertion" to conventional blind insertion.
According to the data presented, this simple but innovative method can
significantly increase the first attempt success rate without increasing procedure
related complications. This method may significantly improve current clinical
practice without increasing medical expense.
Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Generally yes. But there are some concerns the authors should futher address.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. Why choose neutral position? The angle between nasopharyngeal axis and
pharyngeal axis is greater when the patient's head is in neutral position than in
sniffing position.
2. The stiffness of "Rusch stylet-NG tube apparatus" is greater than NG tube
alone. What is the curvature of the stylet when performing NG tube insertion? Is
there a manual bending necessary?
3. How to overcome the anatomic angle from nasopharyngeal axis to pharyngeal
axis? What is the maneuver needed when encountering resistance passing the
angle during insertion?
Are the data sound?
Yes
Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by
the data?
Generally yes. But there are some points the authos should futher discuss.
1. Besides nasal mucosal bleeding, what is the incidence of nasopharyngeal
mucosa trauma in this trial (Major Compulsory Revisions)?
2. Are there any supplemental data available? Such as patients satisfaction and
minor discomforts for example post-operative sore throat and nasal pain?
(Discretionary Revisions)
Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both
published and unpublished?
Yes.
Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes
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:With the assistance of a "Rusch" intubation stylet for facilitating insertion of
a nasogastric tube in anesthesized patients: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:10 June 2012
Reviewer: Wei-Zen Sun
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-conducted randomized controlled trial to compare "Rusch
intubation stylet facilitated NG tube insertion" to conventional blind insertion.
According to the data presented, this simple but innovative method can
significantly increase the first attempt success rate without increasing procedure
related complications. This method may significantly improve current clinical
practice without increasing medical expense.
Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Generally yes. But there are some concerns the authors should futher address.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. Why choose neutral position? The angle between nasopharyngeal axis and
pharyngeal axis is greater when the patient's head is in neutral position than in
sniffing position.
2. The stiffness of "Rusch stylet-NG tube apparatus" is greater than NG tube
alone. What is the curvature of the stylet when performing NG tube insertion? Is
there a manual bending necessary?
3. How to overcome the anatomic angle from nasopharyngeal axis to pharyngeal
axis? What is the maneuver needed when encountering resistance passing the
angle during insertion?
Are the data sound?
Yes
Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by
the data?
Generally yes. But there are some points the authos should futher discuss.
1. Besides nasal mucosal bleeding, what is the incidence of nasopharyngeal
mucosa trauma in this trial (Major Compulsory Revisions)?
2. Are there any supplemental data available? Such as patients satisfaction and
minor discomforts for example post-operative sore throat and nasal pain?
(Discretionary Revisions)
Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both
published and unpublished?
Yes.
Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes
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:With the assistance of a "Rusch" intubation stylet for facilitating insertion of
a nasogastric tube in anesthesized patients: a randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:10 June 2012
Reviewer: Wei-Zen Sun
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-conducted randomized controlled trial to compare "Rusch
intubation stylet facilitated NG tube insertion" to conventional blind insertion.
According to the data presented, this simple but innovative method can
significantly increase the first attempt success rate without increasing procedure
related complications. This method may significantly improve current clinical
practice without increasing medical expense.
Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Generally yes. But there are some concerns the authors should futher address.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. Why choose neutral position? The angle between nasopharyngeal axis and
pharyngeal axis is greater when the patient's head is in neutral position than in
sniffing position.
2. The stiffness of "Rusch stylet-NG tube apparatus" is greater than NG tube
alone. What is the curvature of the stylet when performing NG tube insertion? Is
there a manual bending necessary?
3. How to overcome the anatomic angle from nasopharyngeal axis to pharyngeal
axis? What is the maneuver needed when encountering resistance passing the
angle during insertion?
Are the data sound?
Yes
Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by
the data?
Generally yes. But there are some points the authos should futher discuss.
1. Besides nasal mucosal bleeding, what is the incidence of nasopharyngeal
mucosa trauma in this trial (Major Compulsory Revisions)?
2. Are there any supplemental data available? Such as patients satisfaction and
minor discomforts for example post-operative sore throat and nasal pain?
(Discretionary Revisions)
Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building, both
published and unpublished?
Yes.
Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes
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