Title: Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for postoperative
peripancreatic fluid collection with an external drainage-based approach
Version: 3 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Theodore W. James
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided
transmural drainage (EUS-TD) with external drainage for postoperative peripancreatic fluid
collections (POPFC), addressing an area with limited consensus on optimal stent selection and
intervention timing. The study is well-structured, with clear methodology, defined inclusion/
exclusion criteria, and transparent reporting of technical and clinical outcomes. The discussion
section highlights key considerations, including stent selection, intervention timing, and follow-
up care. However, the retrospective nature and small sample size (14 patients) limit the
generalizability of the findings, and these limitations should be further emphasized in the
discussion, alongside suggestions for future prospective studies.
Several key areas require refinement to enhance the manuscript's robustness and clarity.
The inclusion of secondary outcomes, such as long-term follow-up data on recurrence or
complications, would provide additional clinical value. A more thorough statistical analysis,
including confidence intervals and subgroup comparisons, is needed to strengthen the study's
findings. Additionally, the discussion could benefit from a more detailed comparison of external
drainage outcomes with internal drainage or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Addressing
these aspects would enhance the manuscript's contribution to clinical practice and its relevance
for a broader audience.
Minor revisions are also necessary to improve the manuscript's overall presentation and
readability. The abstract should briefly highlight the study's limitations for balanced reporting.
Figures and tables require consistent labeling, higher resolution, and clear definitions of
abbreviations. The discussion could be expanded to address cost-effectiveness and patient-
reported outcomes, such as quality of life during drainage. Finally, a thorough proofreading
for grammar and language clarity, along with ensuring consistent reference formatting, would
improve the manuscript's polish. With these revisions, the study would be well-positioned for
publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Title: Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for postoperative
peripancreatic fluid collection with an external drainage-based approach
Version: 3 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Theodore W. James
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided
transmural drainage (EUS-TD) with external drainage for postoperative peripancreatic fluid
collections (POPFC), addressing an area with limited consensus on optimal stent selection and
intervention timing. The study is well-structured, with clear methodology, defined inclusion/
exclusion criteria, and transparent reporting of technical and clinical outcomes. The discussion
section highlights key considerations, including stent selection, intervention timing, and follow-
up care. However, the retrospective nature and small sample size (14 patients) limit the
generalizability of the findings, and these limitations should be further emphasized in the
discussion, alongside suggestions for future prospective studies.
Several key areas require refinement to enhance the manuscript's robustness and clarity.
The inclusion of secondary outcomes, such as long-term follow-up data on recurrence or
complications, would provide additional clinical value. A more thorough statistical analysis,
including confidence intervals and subgroup comparisons, is needed to strengthen the study's
findings. Additionally, the discussion could benefit from a more detailed comparison of external
drainage outcomes with internal drainage or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Addressing
these aspects would enhance the manuscript's contribution to clinical practice and its relevance
for a broader audience.
Minor revisions are also necessary to improve the manuscript's overall presentation and
readability. The abstract should briefly highlight the study's limitations for balanced reporting.
Figures and tables require consistent labeling, higher resolution, and clear definitions of
abbreviations. The discussion could be expanded to address cost-effectiveness and patient-
reported outcomes, such as quality of life during drainage. Finally, a thorough proofreading
for grammar and language clarity, along with ensuring consistent reference formatting, would
improve the manuscript's polish. With these revisions, the study would be well-positioned for
publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for postoperative
peripancreatic fluid collection with an external drainage-based approach
Version: 3 Date: 26 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Theodore W. James
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided
transmural drainage (EUS-TD) with external drainage for postoperative peripancreatic fluid
collections (POPFC), addressing an area with limited consensus on optimal stent selection and
intervention timing. The study is well-structured, with clear methodology, defined inclusion/
exclusion criteria, and transparent reporting of technical and clinical outcomes. The discussion
section highlights key considerations, including stent selection, intervention timing, and follow-
up care. However, the retrospective nature and small sample size (14 patients) limit the
generalizability of the findings, and these limitations should be further emphasized in the
discussion, alongside suggestions for future prospective studies.
Several key areas require refinement to enhance the manuscript's robustness and clarity.
The inclusion of secondary outcomes, such as long-term follow-up data on recurrence or
complications, would provide additional clinical value. A more thorough statistical analysis,
including confidence intervals and subgroup comparisons, is needed to strengthen the study's
findings. Additionally, the discussion could benefit from a more detailed comparison of external
drainage outcomes with internal drainage or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Addressing
these aspects would enhance the manuscript's contribution to clinical practice and its relevance
for a broader audience.
Minor revisions are also necessary to improve the manuscript's overall presentation and
readability. The abstract should briefly highlight the study's limitations for balanced reporting.
Figures and tables require consistent labeling, higher resolution, and clear definitions of
abbreviations. The discussion could be expanded to address cost-effectiveness and patient-
reported outcomes, such as quality of life during drainage. Finally, a thorough proofreading
for grammar and language clarity, along with ensuring consistent reference formatting, would
improve the manuscript's polish. With these revisions, the study would be well-positioned for
publication in BMC Gastroenterology.
assistant