Reviewer's report
Title:Multidisciplinary Approaches Vary as to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound
(EUS) - Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Controversial Indications
Version: 2Date:29 May 2011
Reviewer: Jose Celso Ardengh
Reviewer's report:
Comments on the paper entitled "Approaches Vary Among the Disciplines
Relevant to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) - Guided Fine Needle
Aspiration: Controversial Indications. " Lachter et al.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes but the introduction is long and confusing. I suggest the authors to decrease
the text, making it more objective and convincing to the readers. Goals should be
better addressed.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
This section is clear but I think the proposal specified as doubtful cases shall be
described in this section and not in the results section. The results should show
only the results and not the description of each of the cases under discussion.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
This manuscript is interesting and demonstrates exactly the controversial clinical
situations regarding the indication or not of EUS-FNA of our daily clinical
practice.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The discussion and conclusion are long and should be rewritten because at
various points they generate confusion. At certain points the work is confusing
and the writing is long, but this can be fixed easily.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title is appropriate for the paper. The abstract is well formatted and
expressed specifically what the paper show.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
I think the work should be published because the methodology of applied
research is satisfactory.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Multidisciplinary Approaches Vary as to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound
(EUS) - Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Controversial Indications
Version: 2Date:29 May 2011
Reviewer: Jose Celso Ardengh
Reviewer's report:
Comments on the paper entitled "Approaches Vary Among the Disciplines
Relevant to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) - Guided Fine Needle
Aspiration: Controversial Indications. " Lachter et al.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes but the introduction is long and confusing. I suggest the authors to decrease
the text, making it more objective and convincing to the readers. Goals should be
better addressed.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
This section is clear but I think the proposal specified as doubtful cases shall be
described in this section and not in the results section. The results should show
only the results and not the description of each of the cases under discussion.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
This manuscript is interesting and demonstrates exactly the controversial clinical
situations regarding the indication or not of EUS-FNA of our daily clinical
practice.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The discussion and conclusion are long and should be rewritten because at
various points they generate confusion. At certain points the work is confusing
and the writing is long, but this can be fixed easily.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title is appropriate for the paper. The abstract is well formatted and
expressed specifically what the paper show.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
I think the work should be published because the methodology of applied
research is satisfactory.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Multidisciplinary Approaches Vary as to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound
(EUS) - Guided Fine Needle Aspiration: Controversial Indications
Version: 2Date:29 May 2011
Reviewer: Jose Celso Ardengh
Reviewer's report:
Comments on the paper entitled "Approaches Vary Among the Disciplines
Relevant to the Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) - Guided Fine Needle
Aspiration: Controversial Indications. " Lachter et al.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes but the introduction is long and confusing. I suggest the authors to decrease
the text, making it more objective and convincing to the readers. Goals should be
better addressed.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
This section is clear but I think the proposal specified as doubtful cases shall be
described in this section and not in the results section. The results should show
only the results and not the description of each of the cases under discussion.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
This manuscript is interesting and demonstrates exactly the controversial clinical
situations regarding the indication or not of EUS-FNA of our daily clinical
practice.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The discussion and conclusion are long and should be rewritten because at
various points they generate confusion. At certain points the work is confusing
and the writing is long, but this can be fixed easily.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title is appropriate for the paper. The abstract is well formatted and
expressed specifically what the paper show.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
I think the work should be published because the methodology of applied
research is satisfactory.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
assistant