Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the
gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after
pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis
Version:1Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: Piotr Witkowski
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?- yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?- yes
3. Are the data sound?- yes
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?-
yes
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?- yes
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?- yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?- yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?- yes
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?- yes
10. Is the writing acceptable?- yes
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the
gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after
pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis
Version:1Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: Piotr Witkowski
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?- yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?- yes
3. Are the data sound?- yes
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?-
yes
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?- yes
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?- yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?- yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?- yes
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?- yes
10. Is the writing acceptable?- yes
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of antecolic or retrocolic reconstruction of the
gastro/duodenojejunostomy on delayed gastric emptying after
pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis
Version:1Date:16 March 2015
Reviewer: Piotr Witkowski
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?- yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?- yes
3. Are the data sound?- yes
4. Do the figures appear to be genuine, i.e. without evidence of manipulation?-
yes
5. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?- yes
6. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?- yes
7. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?- yes
8. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?- yes
9. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?- yes
10. Is the writing acceptable?- yes
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interest
assistant