Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:15 November 2007
Reviewer: Takeshi Tsujino
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have responded adequately to my questions and suggestions in my
prior review. I think that the 3rd paragraph in Discussion of the revised
manuscript is legible divison into two, but I recommend publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:15 November 2007
Reviewer: Takeshi Tsujino
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have responded adequately to my questions and suggestions in my
prior review. I think that the 3rd paragraph in Discussion of the revised
manuscript is legible divison into two, but I recommend publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Version: 3Date:15 November 2007
Reviewer: Takeshi Tsujino
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have responded adequately to my questions and suggestions in my
prior review. I think that the 3rd paragraph in Discussion of the revised
manuscript is legible divison into two, but I recommend publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
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 declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant