Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of Argon Plasma Coagulation in Management of Upper
Gastrointestinal Angiodysplasia and Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia Hemorrhage
Version: 2Date:5 February 2012
Reviewer: Christopher Vickers
Reviewer's report:
The paper is an interesting study on the comparison of an established technique
to control bleeding from two uncommon causes of gastric bleeding. They provide
good numbers of patients in a situtaion where the average gastroenterologist
may see only very small infrequent patients. The paper is publishable although
the techniques are not new. The value of the paper lies in its clnical numbers and
sufficiency for comparisons.
The paper needs to be returned to the authors for corrections and amendments
especially to methodology and results and be reviewed again before it is
published.
The following should be noted to the authors for improvements to the paper:
Methods:
1: Should mention the phrase "prospective study" if applicable;
2. The Argon gas flow is stated 1-2 l/min. What exactly was the gas flow 1 or
2 l/min or was it arbitrary and variable. If it was variable then the authors should
state this and compare the results with this additional parameter. 2 l/min gives
deeper level of cautery and may play a role in the control of bleeding and risk of
rebleeding. If the authors do not have this data the this must be discussed in the
Discussion section. They do discuss this aspect i general but without reference to
their resuls and flow rates.
3. Was a PPI infusion given post-APC for all patients as per Hong Kong protocol.
If so, which PPI and the infusion rate. If it was bolus PPI the authors should state
this and comment on why they used bolus and not infusion.
4. Were patients using aspirin or anti-inflammatory drugs excluded from the
study.
Results:
1. Please state details of radiation therapy. Was this intra-arterial
radioembolisation, external beam or simply TACE. Were patients given
preliminary arterial occlusion embolisation to the left gastric artery or other
vessels on the work up before radiation therapy.
2. Please state if rebleeding was from the treatment sites or untreated sites.
Discussion:
1. Paragraph 5 Sentence commencing "surgical intervention......" is ambiguous
and needs rewriting.
References:
Reference 3 needs re-checking. Is the journal Gastroenterology which is being
quoted. ? "Gastoenterologist" is not a journal which I am familar with.
Table 1:
The ranges should be identified as 1 or 2 Standard deviations by a note on the
Table.
Figures which are not significant could be deleted and substituted by p=NS
Spelling and Grammar
Some rewriting and corrections need to be made to conform with spelling and
grammar. For example the first word of the paper is "ABARACT" instead of
ABSTRACT. There are other instances in the paper that require correction.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Comparison of Argon Plasma Coagulation in Management of Upper
Gastrointestinal Angiodysplasia and Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia Hemorrhage
Version: 2Date:5 February 2012
Reviewer: Christopher Vickers
Reviewer's report:
The paper is an interesting study on the comparison of an established technique
to control bleeding from two uncommon causes of gastric bleeding. They provide
good numbers of patients in a situtaion where the average gastroenterologist
may see only very small infrequent patients. The paper is publishable although
the techniques are not new. The value of the paper lies in its clnical numbers and
sufficiency for comparisons.
The paper needs to be returned to the authors for corrections and amendments
especially to methodology and results and be reviewed again before it is
published.
The following should be noted to the authors for improvements to the paper:
Methods:
1: Should mention the phrase "prospective study" if applicable;
2. The Argon gas flow is stated 1-2 l/min. What exactly was the gas flow 1 or
2 l/min or was it arbitrary and variable. If it was variable then the authors should
state this and compare the results with this additional parameter. 2 l/min gives
deeper level of cautery and may play a role in the control of bleeding and risk of
rebleeding. If the authors do not have this data the this must be discussed in the
Discussion section. They do discuss this aspect i general but without reference to
their resuls and flow rates.
3. Was a PPI infusion given post-APC for all patients as per Hong Kong protocol.
If so, which PPI and the infusion rate. If it was bolus PPI the authors should state
this and comment on why they used bolus and not infusion.
4. Were patients using aspirin or anti-inflammatory drugs excluded from the
study.
Results:
1. Please state details of radiation therapy. Was this intra-arterial
radioembolisation, external beam or simply TACE. Were patients given
preliminary arterial occlusion embolisation to the left gastric artery or other
vessels on the work up before radiation therapy.
2. Please state if rebleeding was from the treatment sites or untreated sites.
Discussion:
1. Paragraph 5 Sentence commencing "surgical intervention......" is ambiguous
and needs rewriting.
References:
Reference 3 needs re-checking. Is the journal Gastroenterology which is being
quoted. ? "Gastoenterologist" is not a journal which I am familar with.
Table 1:
The ranges should be identified as 1 or 2 Standard deviations by a note on the
Table.
Figures which are not significant could be deleted and substituted by p=NS
Spelling and Grammar
Some rewriting and corrections need to be made to conform with spelling and
grammar. For example the first word of the paper is "ABARACT" instead of
ABSTRACT. There are other instances in the paper that require correction.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Comparison of Argon Plasma Coagulation in Management of Upper
Gastrointestinal Angiodysplasia and Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia Hemorrhage
Version: 2Date:5 February 2012
Reviewer: Christopher Vickers
Reviewer's report:
The paper is an interesting study on the comparison of an established technique
to control bleeding from two uncommon causes of gastric bleeding. They provide
good numbers of patients in a situtaion where the average gastroenterologist
may see only very small infrequent patients. The paper is publishable although
the techniques are not new. The value of the paper lies in its clnical numbers and
sufficiency for comparisons.
The paper needs to be returned to the authors for corrections and amendments
especially to methodology and results and be reviewed again before it is
published.
The following should be noted to the authors for improvements to the paper:
Methods:
1: Should mention the phrase "prospective study" if applicable;
2. The Argon gas flow is stated 1-2 l/min. What exactly was the gas flow 1 or
2 l/min or was it arbitrary and variable. If it was variable then the authors should
state this and compare the results with this additional parameter. 2 l/min gives
deeper level of cautery and may play a role in the control of bleeding and risk of
rebleeding. If the authors do not have this data the this must be discussed in the
Discussion section. They do discuss this aspect i general but without reference to
their resuls and flow rates.
3. Was a PPI infusion given post-APC for all patients as per Hong Kong protocol.
If so, which PPI and the infusion rate. If it was bolus PPI the authors should state
this and comment on why they used bolus and not infusion.
4. Were patients using aspirin or anti-inflammatory drugs excluded from the
study.
Results:
1. Please state details of radiation therapy. Was this intra-arterial
radioembolisation, external beam or simply TACE. Were patients given
preliminary arterial occlusion embolisation to the left gastric artery or other
vessels on the work up before radiation therapy.
2. Please state if rebleeding was from the treatment sites or untreated sites.
Discussion:
1. Paragraph 5 Sentence commencing "surgical intervention......" is ambiguous
and needs rewriting.
References:
Reference 3 needs re-checking. Is the journal Gastroenterology which is being
quoted. ? "Gastoenterologist" is not a journal which I am familar with.
Table 1:
The ranges should be identified as 1 or 2 Standard deviations by a note on the
Table.
Figures which are not significant could be deleted and substituted by p=NS
Spelling and Grammar
Some rewriting and corrections need to be made to conform with spelling and
grammar. For example the first word of the paper is "ABARACT" instead of
ABSTRACT. There are other instances in the paper that require correction.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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