Reviewer's report
Title:Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of
gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 453
cases
Version: 1Date:19 February 2009
Reviewer: Hugo Heij
Reviewer's report:
* Major compulsory revisions.
A (historical) control group is necessary to assess the value of this method in
comparison with either the pull-method or the Direct PEG method as described
by Shastri (ref 12) and by Hikki et al (J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207: 737-44). The
reasons to ask for a control group are a) to demonstrate the safety and feasibility,
as claimed by the authors, whereas several serious complications have occurred
with one death; b) the procedure described in the present manuscript appears to
require surgical skills, whereas the pull method can be performed by
non-surgeons.
* Minor essential revisions
- No abstract attached
- Can the authors inform the reader who performed these procedures?
Gastroenterologists or surgeons?
- What was the mean survival after PEG insertion, in relation to the risk of tumor
cell migration. In other words, how relevant is this risk in this patient category
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of
gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 453
cases
Version: 1Date:19 February 2009
Reviewer: Hugo Heij
Reviewer's report:
* Major compulsory revisions.
A (historical) control group is necessary to assess the value of this method in
comparison with either the pull-method or the Direct PEG method as described
by Shastri (ref 12) and by Hikki et al (J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207: 737-44). The
reasons to ask for a control group are a) to demonstrate the safety and feasibility,
as claimed by the authors, whereas several serious complications have occurred
with one death; b) the procedure described in the present manuscript appears to
require surgical skills, whereas the pull method can be performed by
non-surgeons.
* Minor essential revisions
- No abstract attached
- Can the authors inform the reader who performed these procedures?
Gastroenterologists or surgeons?
- What was the mean survival after PEG insertion, in relation to the risk of tumor
cell migration. In other words, how relevant is this risk in this patient category
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Assessment of safety and feasibility of a new technical variant of
gastropexy for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: an experience with 453
cases
Version: 1Date:19 February 2009
Reviewer: Hugo Heij
Reviewer's report:
* Major compulsory revisions.
A (historical) control group is necessary to assess the value of this method in
comparison with either the pull-method or the Direct PEG method as described
by Shastri (ref 12) and by Hikki et al (J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207: 737-44). The
reasons to ask for a control group are a) to demonstrate the safety and feasibility,
as claimed by the authors, whereas several serious complications have occurred
with one death; b) the procedure described in the present manuscript appears to
require surgical skills, whereas the pull method can be performed by
non-surgeons.
* Minor essential revisions
- No abstract attached
- Can the authors inform the reader who performed these procedures?
Gastroenterologists or surgeons?
- What was the mean survival after PEG insertion, in relation to the risk of tumor
cell migration. In other words, how relevant is this risk in this patient category
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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