Reviewer's report
Title:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version:1Date:15 November 2013
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
1 Sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias studies may be added along with a
Forrest plot
2 It will be better if pooled risk differences with CI are given for all outcome
measures in text and not only for death
3 Para 1 on page 22 is difficult to comprehend. Additionally the authors have
clubbed 3 things together: industrial support, sample size calculation and
outcome. However description of each is incomplete and quite mixed up.
4 The quality of evidence was evaluated by Jadad score and GRADE system.
Description of this should come in methods. Currently its done in results section
directly.
5 It is not clear how articles were excluded by secondary evaluation. They have
also included one abstract in their analysis. I am not sure if that is right.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version:1Date:15 November 2013
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
1 Sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias studies may be added along with a
Forrest plot
2 It will be better if pooled risk differences with CI are given for all outcome
measures in text and not only for death
3 Para 1 on page 22 is difficult to comprehend. Additionally the authors have
clubbed 3 things together: industrial support, sample size calculation and
outcome. However description of each is incomplete and quite mixed up.
4 The quality of evidence was evaluated by Jadad score and GRADE system.
Description of this should come in methods. Currently its done in results section
directly.
5 It is not clear how articles were excluded by secondary evaluation. They have
also included one abstract in their analysis. I am not sure if that is right.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:"Treatment of acute pancreatitis with protease inhibitors: an updated
systematic review and meta-analysis."
Version:1Date:15 November 2013
Reviewer: Rakesh Kochhar
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
1 Sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias studies may be added along with a
Forrest plot
2 It will be better if pooled risk differences with CI are given for all outcome
measures in text and not only for death
3 Para 1 on page 22 is difficult to comprehend. Additionally the authors have
clubbed 3 things together: industrial support, sample size calculation and
outcome. However description of each is incomplete and quite mixed up.
4 The quality of evidence was evaluated by Jadad score and GRADE system.
Description of this should come in methods. Currently its done in results section
directly.
5 It is not clear how articles were excluded by secondary evaluation. They have
also included one abstract in their analysis. I am not sure if that is right.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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