Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:3 October 2011
Reviewer: Georg Kaehler
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes a retrospective analysis about 31 patients with pancreatic
necrosis (detected by endoscopic ultrasound) which did not receive an
interventional or surgical therapy.
The details of endosonograhic characterization have been correlated with the
outcome and recommendations for an observational strategy are given.
This is an question of daily clinical practice and that’s why the paper is
interesting. The used design of the study is originally and allows to improve
clinical decisions. Thus the paper is recommended for publication.
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Chapter “Patients and methods”: The authors should add the used EUS
machines.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
The authors should characterize how they diagnosed “pancreatic necrosis”
compared with localized pancreatitis, because this determination influences the
results strongly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:3 October 2011
Reviewer: Georg Kaehler
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes a retrospective analysis about 31 patients with pancreatic
necrosis (detected by endoscopic ultrasound) which did not receive an
interventional or surgical therapy.
The details of endosonograhic characterization have been correlated with the
outcome and recommendations for an observational strategy are given.
This is an question of daily clinical practice and that’s why the paper is
interesting. The used design of the study is originally and allows to improve
clinical decisions. Thus the paper is recommended for publication.
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Chapter “Patients and methods”: The authors should add the used EUS
machines.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
The authors should characterize how they diagnosed “pancreatic necrosis”
compared with localized pancreatitis, because this determination influences the
results strongly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in
pancreatic necrosis
Version: 1Date:3 October 2011
Reviewer: Georg Kaehler
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes a retrospective analysis about 31 patients with pancreatic
necrosis (detected by endoscopic ultrasound) which did not receive an
interventional or surgical therapy.
The details of endosonograhic characterization have been correlated with the
outcome and recommendations for an observational strategy are given.
This is an question of daily clinical practice and that’s why the paper is
interesting. The used design of the study is originally and allows to improve
clinical decisions. Thus the paper is recommended for publication.
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Chapter “Patients and methods”: The authors should add the used EUS
machines.
• Major Compulsory Revisions (which the author must respond to before a
decision on publication can be reached)
The authors should characterize how they diagnosed “pancreatic necrosis”
compared with localized pancreatitis, because this determination influences the
results strongly.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
assistant