Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials
Version: 2Date:11 October 2010
Reviewer: Stefan Sauerland
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised their manuscript in many different aspects, and I thank
them for their efforts. However, the problems addressed in my initial comments
No. 6 and 8 are still not fully solved.
In their reply to my comment No. 6, the authors state that "absence of blindness
may influence the results" on pain. Rather than speculating on this issue, I would
have preferred a simple sensitivity analysis comparing the results between
blinded and open trials. This would allow an empirical assessment on how strong
blinding does influence pain results.
As described in my initial comment No. 8, I feel that results on operating time
should be rounded to one decimal place or full minutes. It is correct to extract
precise data from the primary studies, but it is statistical overprecision to report
pooled results for operating time with two decimals places, because nobody
measures operating time in seconds (0.01 minutes = 0.6 seconds).
As all my other comments have been addressed, I recommend the manuscript
for publication.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials
Version: 2Date:11 October 2010
Reviewer: Stefan Sauerland
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised their manuscript in many different aspects, and I thank
them for their efforts. However, the problems addressed in my initial comments
No. 6 and 8 are still not fully solved.
In their reply to my comment No. 6, the authors state that "absence of blindness
may influence the results" on pain. Rather than speculating on this issue, I would
have preferred a simple sensitivity analysis comparing the results between
blinded and open trials. This would allow an empirical assessment on how strong
blinding does influence pain results.
As described in my initial comment No. 8, I feel that results on operating time
should be rounded to one decimal place or full minutes. It is correct to extract
precise data from the primary studies, but it is statistical overprecision to report
pooled results for operating time with two decimals places, because nobody
measures operating time in seconds (0.01 minutes = 0.6 seconds).
As all my other comments have been addressed, I recommend the manuscript
for publication.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials
Version: 2Date:11 October 2010
Reviewer: Stefan Sauerland
Reviewer's report:
The authors have revised their manuscript in many different aspects, and I thank
them for their efforts. However, the problems addressed in my initial comments
No. 6 and 8 are still not fully solved.
In their reply to my comment No. 6, the authors state that "absence of blindness
may influence the results" on pain. Rather than speculating on this issue, I would
have preferred a simple sensitivity analysis comparing the results between
blinded and open trials. This would allow an empirical assessment on how strong
blinding does influence pain results.
As described in my initial comment No. 8, I feel that results on operating time
should be rounded to one decimal place or full minutes. It is correct to extract
precise data from the primary studies, but it is statistical overprecision to report
pooled results for operating time with two decimals places, because nobody
measures operating time in seconds (0.01 minutes = 0.6 seconds).
As all my other comments have been addressed, I recommend the manuscript
for publication.
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant