Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with stents: A
systematic evaluation of the reported variables for clinical outcome
Version: 2Date:23 January 2009
Reviewer: Iruru Maetani
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. In the Methods section, the authors mention that the third evaluation
parameter of this study is “information on stent patency and survival”. However,
in the Results section, although explanation of stent patency and migration is
provided, there is no mention of its survival.
2. In the Methods section, the authors say, “When studies included identical
patients, the most recent study was included.” Although Ref#26 (2001-2004) and
Ref#41 (2001-2005) presumably included identical patients, both articles were
included as prospective studies. This needs to be confirmed.
3. Did your study include stent placement for esophagojejunostomy after total
gastrectomy (i.e. Ref#40)? If so, you should exclude these references from this
study, since stricture of esophagojejunostomy is not gastric outlet obstruction.
4. In the Results section, the authors mention that the numbers of prospective
studies are 10 with endoscopic/fluoroscopic method and 11 with fluoroscopic
method, totaling 21. According to Table 2, however, the number of prospective
study is 20. Please confirm the number of references.
5. The title of this paper is “endoscopic treatment….” However, this paper
includes some studies by radiologists making no use of endoscopy, and so the
title should be revised.
Discretionary Revisions
1. It seems favorable to display brief listing of all studies included in this study.
2. In the end of Discussion, the authors mention, “and it is ………….in all
subjects treated.” This was confirmed in a previous investigation (Maetani I, et al.
Hepato-Gastroenterology 2008;55:298-302). It is preferable to quote the
reference for this sentence.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with stents: A
systematic evaluation of the reported variables for clinical outcome
Version: 2Date:23 January 2009
Reviewer: Iruru Maetani
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. In the Methods section, the authors mention that the third evaluation
parameter of this study is “information on stent patency and survival”. However,
in the Results section, although explanation of stent patency and migration is
provided, there is no mention of its survival.
2. In the Methods section, the authors say, “When studies included identical
patients, the most recent study was included.” Although Ref#26 (2001-2004) and
Ref#41 (2001-2005) presumably included identical patients, both articles were
included as prospective studies. This needs to be confirmed.
3. Did your study include stent placement for esophagojejunostomy after total
gastrectomy (i.e. Ref#40)? If so, you should exclude these references from this
study, since stricture of esophagojejunostomy is not gastric outlet obstruction.
4. In the Results section, the authors mention that the numbers of prospective
studies are 10 with endoscopic/fluoroscopic method and 11 with fluoroscopic
method, totaling 21. According to Table 2, however, the number of prospective
study is 20. Please confirm the number of references.
5. The title of this paper is “endoscopic treatment….” However, this paper
includes some studies by radiologists making no use of endoscopy, and so the
title should be revised.
Discretionary Revisions
1. It seems favorable to display brief listing of all studies included in this study.
2. In the end of Discussion, the authors mention, “and it is ………….in all
subjects treated.” This was confirmed in a previous investigation (Maetani I, et al.
Hepato-Gastroenterology 2008;55:298-302). It is preferable to quote the
reference for this sentence.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with stents: A
systematic evaluation of the reported variables for clinical outcome
Version: 2Date:23 January 2009
Reviewer: Iruru Maetani
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. In the Methods section, the authors mention that the third evaluation
parameter of this study is “information on stent patency and survival”. However,
in the Results section, although explanation of stent patency and migration is
provided, there is no mention of its survival.
2. In the Methods section, the authors say, “When studies included identical
patients, the most recent study was included.” Although Ref#26 (2001-2004) and
Ref#41 (2001-2005) presumably included identical patients, both articles were
included as prospective studies. This needs to be confirmed.
3. Did your study include stent placement for esophagojejunostomy after total
gastrectomy (i.e. Ref#40)? If so, you should exclude these references from this
study, since stricture of esophagojejunostomy is not gastric outlet obstruction.
4. In the Results section, the authors mention that the numbers of prospective
studies are 10 with endoscopic/fluoroscopic method and 11 with fluoroscopic
method, totaling 21. According to Table 2, however, the number of prospective
study is 20. Please confirm the number of references.
5. The title of this paper is “endoscopic treatment….” However, this paper
includes some studies by radiologists making no use of endoscopy, and so the
title should be revised.
Discretionary Revisions
1. It seems favorable to display brief listing of all studies included in this study.
2. In the end of Discussion, the authors mention, “and it is ………….in all
subjects treated.” This was confirmed in a previous investigation (Maetani I, et al.
Hepato-Gastroenterology 2008;55:298-302). It is preferable to quote the
reference for this sentence.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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