Reviewer's report
Title:Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version:2Date:23 June 2014
Reviewer: Chen Shuan Chung
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to elucidate the differences in efficacy and safety between
covered and uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for the management of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction by meta-analysis method. Some questions
should be answered by authors before consideration for publication.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.In the “Complications and reintervention” part of the “Results”, uncovered stent
was associated with lower rate of stent obstruction (page 8, line 12-13); however,
in the “Sensitivity analysis” part of the “Results”, covered stent was associated
with lower rate of stent obstruction (page 9, line 1-3). Could you make more
explanations about this issue in the “discussion” part, or provide raw data for
statistical analysis?
Minor Essential Revisions:
1.There was no analysis of demographic data in the enrolled population? Were
the etiologies for malignant gastric outlet obstruction the same or heterogeneous
in most of the studies?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version:2Date:23 June 2014
Reviewer: Chen Shuan Chung
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to elucidate the differences in efficacy and safety between
covered and uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for the management of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction by meta-analysis method. Some questions
should be answered by authors before consideration for publication.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.In the “Complications and reintervention” part of the “Results”, uncovered stent
was associated with lower rate of stent obstruction (page 8, line 12-13); however,
in the “Sensitivity analysis” part of the “Results”, covered stent was associated
with lower rate of stent obstruction (page 9, line 1-3). Could you make more
explanations about this issue in the “discussion” part, or provide raw data for
statistical analysis?
Minor Essential Revisions:
1.There was no analysis of demographic data in the enrolled population? Were
the etiologies for malignant gastric outlet obstruction the same or heterogeneous
in most of the studies?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Covered versus uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for palliation of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version:2Date:23 June 2014
Reviewer: Chen Shuan Chung
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to elucidate the differences in efficacy and safety between
covered and uncovered self-expandable metallic stents for the management of
malignant gastric outlet obstruction by meta-analysis method. Some questions
should be answered by authors before consideration for publication.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1.In the “Complications and reintervention” part of the “Results”, uncovered stent
was associated with lower rate of stent obstruction (page 8, line 12-13); however,
in the “Sensitivity analysis” part of the “Results”, covered stent was associated
with lower rate of stent obstruction (page 9, line 1-3). Could you make more
explanations about this issue in the “discussion” part, or provide raw data for
statistical analysis?
Minor Essential Revisions:
1.There was no analysis of demographic data in the enrolled population? Were
the etiologies for malignant gastric outlet obstruction the same or heterogeneous
in most of the studies?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
assistant