Title: Safety of Early Feeding after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy: A
Retrospective Study.
Version: 0 Date: 16 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The study investigates the safety of early feeding after EUS-FNA, which is a relevant and
clinically significant topic. However, several critical methodological concerns need to be
addressed before the findings can be considered reliable.
Major Comments
1. The title mentions "efficacy," but is efficacy actually evaluated in the study? The introduction
suggests potential benefits such as shortened hospital stay and improved nutrition, yet it is
unclear how "efficacy" is specifically assessed. If efficacy is not explicitly measured, we
recommend revising the title for accuracy.
2. The study includes only 110 patients, which is relatively small given the low incidence
of complications associated with EUS-FNA. In fact, only three complications were observed
across both groups. This raises a significant concern regarding statistical power. A proper
power analysis should be conducted to determine whether the sample size is sufficient to detect
clinically meaningful differences.
3. This study does not clearly define what constitutes a complication of EUS-FNA. While the
text mentions that some patients developed pancreatitis as a complication, it remains unclear
whether other known complications of EUS-FNA, such as bleeding, perforation, or infection,
occurred. Furthermore, the severity of complications should also be reported. Providing a precise
definition of complications is essential for ensuring the reproducibility and clinical relevance
of the results.
4. The basis for assigning patients to the Early Feeding group and the 24-h Fasting group is
not clearly stated. Were the patients randomly assigned, or were there specific inclusion criteria
for each group? Furthermore, did any patients undergo additional endoscopic procedures on the
same day, such as ERCP? The criteria for group allocation are critically important in ensuring
the validity of the comparisons made in this study.
5. The most frequent number of needle passes in this study is reported as five, which is relatively
high compared to previous studies. Studies should clearly describe how the number of needle
passes was determined, particularly with regard to the use of Macroscopic on-site evaluation
(MOSE) or Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
Title: Safety of Early Feeding after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy: A
Retrospective Study.
Version: 0 Date: 16 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The study investigates the safety of early feeding after EUS-FNA, which is a relevant and
clinically significant topic. However, several critical methodological concerns need to be
addressed before the findings can be considered reliable.
Major Comments
1. The title mentions "efficacy," but is efficacy actually evaluated in the study? The introduction
suggests potential benefits such as shortened hospital stay and improved nutrition, yet it is
unclear how "efficacy" is specifically assessed. If efficacy is not explicitly measured, we
recommend revising the title for accuracy.
2. The study includes only 110 patients, which is relatively small given the low incidence
of complications associated with EUS-FNA. In fact, only three complications were observed
across both groups. This raises a significant concern regarding statistical power. A proper
power analysis should be conducted to determine whether the sample size is sufficient to detect
clinically meaningful differences.
3. This study does not clearly define what constitutes a complication of EUS-FNA. While the
text mentions that some patients developed pancreatitis as a complication, it remains unclear
whether other known complications of EUS-FNA, such as bleeding, perforation, or infection,
occurred. Furthermore, the severity of complications should also be reported. Providing a precise
definition of complications is essential for ensuring the reproducibility and clinical relevance
of the results.
4. The basis for assigning patients to the Early Feeding group and the 24-h Fasting group is
not clearly stated. Were the patients randomly assigned, or were there specific inclusion criteria
for each group? Furthermore, did any patients undergo additional endoscopic procedures on the
same day, such as ERCP? The criteria for group allocation are critically important in ensuring
the validity of the comparisons made in this study.
5. The most frequent number of needle passes in this study is reported as five, which is relatively
high compared to previous studies. Studies should clearly describe how the number of needle
passes was determined, particularly with regard to the use of Macroscopic on-site evaluation
(MOSE) or Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Safety of Early Feeding after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy: A
Retrospective Study.
Version: 0 Date: 16 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
The study investigates the safety of early feeding after EUS-FNA, which is a relevant and
clinically significant topic. However, several critical methodological concerns need to be
addressed before the findings can be considered reliable.
Major Comments
1. The title mentions "efficacy," but is efficacy actually evaluated in the study? The introduction
suggests potential benefits such as shortened hospital stay and improved nutrition, yet it is
unclear how "efficacy" is specifically assessed. If efficacy is not explicitly measured, we
recommend revising the title for accuracy.
2. The study includes only 110 patients, which is relatively small given the low incidence
of complications associated with EUS-FNA. In fact, only three complications were observed
across both groups. This raises a significant concern regarding statistical power. A proper
power analysis should be conducted to determine whether the sample size is sufficient to detect
clinically meaningful differences.
3. This study does not clearly define what constitutes a complication of EUS-FNA. While the
text mentions that some patients developed pancreatitis as a complication, it remains unclear
whether other known complications of EUS-FNA, such as bleeding, perforation, or infection,
occurred. Furthermore, the severity of complications should also be reported. Providing a precise
definition of complications is essential for ensuring the reproducibility and clinical relevance
of the results.
4. The basis for assigning patients to the Early Feeding group and the 24-h Fasting group is
not clearly stated. Were the patients randomly assigned, or were there specific inclusion criteria
for each group? Furthermore, did any patients undergo additional endoscopic procedures on the
same day, such as ERCP? The criteria for group allocation are critically important in ensuring
the validity of the comparisons made in this study.
5. The most frequent number of needle passes in this study is reported as five, which is relatively
high compared to previous studies. Studies should clearly describe how the number of needle
passes was determined, particularly with regard to the use of Macroscopic on-site evaluation
(MOSE) or Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
assistant