Reviewer's report
Title:Case report: Acute Pancreatitis Caused By Postcholecystectomic
Hemobilia.
Version: 3Date:24 January 2010
Reviewer: vincenzo napolitano
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1)There are a lot of language mistakes: the paper must be reviewed by a native
English speaker
2)Was the cholecystectomy performed in emergency ? if so, the
pseudoaneurysm is more frequent and the author should make a reference to
this
3)I think that the interest of the paper is better based on the management of the
hemobilia and its complication rather than on the cause of the acute pancreatitis.
The author should focus on this feature
4)The references are now “expired”, there are no any recent ones
5)ERCP is now considered an operative procedure rather than diagnostic and I
have not had this feeling reading the paper (the diagnosis has been made by the
gastroscopy).
6)I disagree with the sentence:” But hemobilia rising from a pseudoaneurysm
after cholecystectomy and causing acute pancreatitis was yet not described”
because the pseudoaneurysm is a well known cause of hemobilia and the biliary
clots can cause acute pancreatitis by obstruction
Minor Essential Revisions:
1)During US and CT scan was the pancreas examinated? Why the author did not
specificated this? The patient had an acute pancreatitis!
2)The author should give some information about the devices used to perform
embolization (coils, stent…) and compare the procedure with literature
3)Describe the medical management of the acute pancreatitis (drugs, devices,
score…)
4)Look at the n° 9 reference: it is incomplete.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Case report: Acute Pancreatitis Caused By Postcholecystectomic
Hemobilia.
Version: 3Date:24 January 2010
Reviewer: vincenzo napolitano
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1)There are a lot of language mistakes: the paper must be reviewed by a native
English speaker
2)Was the cholecystectomy performed in emergency ? if so, the
pseudoaneurysm is more frequent and the author should make a reference to
this
3)I think that the interest of the paper is better based on the management of the
hemobilia and its complication rather than on the cause of the acute pancreatitis.
The author should focus on this feature
4)The references are now “expired”, there are no any recent ones
5)ERCP is now considered an operative procedure rather than diagnostic and I
have not had this feeling reading the paper (the diagnosis has been made by the
gastroscopy).
6)I disagree with the sentence:” But hemobilia rising from a pseudoaneurysm
after cholecystectomy and causing acute pancreatitis was yet not described”
because the pseudoaneurysm is a well known cause of hemobilia and the biliary
clots can cause acute pancreatitis by obstruction
Minor Essential Revisions:
1)During US and CT scan was the pancreas examinated? Why the author did not
specificated this? The patient had an acute pancreatitis!
2)The author should give some information about the devices used to perform
embolization (coils, stent…) and compare the procedure with literature
3)Describe the medical management of the acute pancreatitis (drugs, devices,
score…)
4)Look at the n° 9 reference: it is incomplete.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Case report: Acute Pancreatitis Caused By Postcholecystectomic
Hemobilia.
Version: 3Date:24 January 2010
Reviewer: vincenzo napolitano
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1)There are a lot of language mistakes: the paper must be reviewed by a native
English speaker
2)Was the cholecystectomy performed in emergency ? if so, the
pseudoaneurysm is more frequent and the author should make a reference to
this
3)I think that the interest of the paper is better based on the management of the
hemobilia and its complication rather than on the cause of the acute pancreatitis.
The author should focus on this feature
4)The references are now “expired”, there are no any recent ones
5)ERCP is now considered an operative procedure rather than diagnostic and I
have not had this feeling reading the paper (the diagnosis has been made by the
gastroscopy).
6)I disagree with the sentence:” But hemobilia rising from a pseudoaneurysm
after cholecystectomy and causing acute pancreatitis was yet not described”
because the pseudoaneurysm is a well known cause of hemobilia and the biliary
clots can cause acute pancreatitis by obstruction
Minor Essential Revisions:
1)During US and CT scan was the pancreas examinated? Why the author did not
specificated this? The patient had an acute pancreatitis!
2)The author should give some information about the devices used to perform
embolization (coils, stent…) and compare the procedure with literature
3)Describe the medical management of the acute pancreatitis (drugs, devices,
score…)
4)Look at the n° 9 reference: it is incomplete.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant