Reviewer's report
Title:Sensitivity of intra-abdominal, intra-organ and intravascular pressures in
detecting changes induced by external abdominal pressure with and without
PEEP: an experimental study
Version: 2Date:28 September 2009
Reviewer: Jan De Waele
Reviewer's report:
Jakob et al. report the results of an animal study looking at the effect of changes
in IAP and PEEP on intra-abdominally and intra-thoracally measured pressures.
It is an interesting study, as it specifically looks at changes, and not absolute
values.
Introduction
* Dysfunction of the abdominal wall is mentioned, but the reference (13) only
refers to reduced flow in the wall.
* The references used in the introduction are not always correctly used. Ref 11 is
an editorial, and is not on hepatosplanchnic perfusion. Ref 7 is a review, I would
not use that here.
* According to the current consensus, ACS is defined as IAP>20 , not 25. ACS
means organ dysfunction, not an increased risk for it.
Third paragraph, last sentence (on other routes for pressure measurement) is a
repeat from the same paragraph.
Results.
* What happened to the animal in which no changes were found? What was the
problem? * Just deleting it from the experiment because you did not see what
you expected to see is a bit easy.
* Systemic hemodynamics in table 1. Please provide data from all time points.
* I found the figures very difficult to understand. Why present the data like this? I
would suggest to use boxplots of the IAP at every different location.
Discussion.
* Please discuss the fact that although changes are comparable, absolute values
are not.
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:Sensitivity of intra-abdominal, intra-organ and intravascular pressures in
detecting changes induced by external abdominal pressure with and without
PEEP: an experimental study
Version: 2Date:28 September 2009
Reviewer: Jan De Waele
Reviewer's report:
Jakob et al. report the results of an animal study looking at the effect of changes
in IAP and PEEP on intra-abdominally and intra-thoracally measured pressures.
It is an interesting study, as it specifically looks at changes, and not absolute
values.
Introduction
* Dysfunction of the abdominal wall is mentioned, but the reference (13) only
refers to reduced flow in the wall.
* The references used in the introduction are not always correctly used. Ref 11 is
an editorial, and is not on hepatosplanchnic perfusion. Ref 7 is a review, I would
not use that here.
* According to the current consensus, ACS is defined as IAP>20 , not 25. ACS
means organ dysfunction, not an increased risk for it.
Third paragraph, last sentence (on other routes for pressure measurement) is a
repeat from the same paragraph.
Results.
* What happened to the animal in which no changes were found? What was the
problem? * Just deleting it from the experiment because you did not see what
you expected to see is a bit easy.
* Systemic hemodynamics in table 1. Please provide data from all time points.
* I found the figures very difficult to understand. Why present the data like this? I
would suggest to use boxplots of the IAP at every different location.
Discussion.
* Please discuss the fact that although changes are comparable, absolute values
are not.
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:Sensitivity of intra-abdominal, intra-organ and intravascular pressures in
detecting changes induced by external abdominal pressure with and without
PEEP: an experimental study
Version: 2Date:28 September 2009
Reviewer: Jan De Waele
Reviewer's report:
Jakob et al. report the results of an animal study looking at the effect of changes
in IAP and PEEP on intra-abdominally and intra-thoracally measured pressures.
It is an interesting study, as it specifically looks at changes, and not absolute
values.
Introduction
* Dysfunction of the abdominal wall is mentioned, but the reference (13) only
refers to reduced flow in the wall.
* The references used in the introduction are not always correctly used. Ref 11 is
an editorial, and is not on hepatosplanchnic perfusion. Ref 7 is a review, I would
not use that here.
* According to the current consensus, ACS is defined as IAP>20 , not 25. ACS
means organ dysfunction, not an increased risk for it.
Third paragraph, last sentence (on other routes for pressure measurement) is a
repeat from the same paragraph.
Results.
* What happened to the animal in which no changes were found? What was the
problem? * Just deleting it from the experiment because you did not see what
you expected to see is a bit easy.
* Systemic hemodynamics in table 1. Please provide data from all time points.
* I found the figures very difficult to understand. Why present the data like this? I
would suggest to use boxplots of the IAP at every different location.
Discussion.
* Please discuss the fact that although changes are comparable, absolute values
are not.
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