Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage for Obstructive Jaundice Using Either a 5
Fr or 7 Fr Catheter: a Prospective, Randomized Trial
Version:2Date:29 July 2014
Reviewer: Bharat Joshi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision:
1. The authors should describe the primary and secondary endpoints adequately
in the materials and methods section. It is not clear how reproducibly the
effectiveness of bile duct drainage was evaluated among patients using these
catheters. Whether these patients developed any clinical symptoms? Did authors
observe any correlation between bilirubin drainage and improvement in health of
the patients? This information should be included in the materials and methods
section and assessment should be described in Results section.
2. Secondly, they should provide information how these patients were clinically
examined for their levels of discomfort in materials and methods section. The
manuscript does not provide how clinical presentations corroborated the
questionnaire for assessing the levels of discomfort. The authors should describe
this issue adequately in Results section.
Minor Comments:
3. Some references are redundant and do not add any additional information.
Please keep the key references that support the theme of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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 Nasobiliary Drainage for Obstructive Jaundice Using Either a 5
Fr or 7 Fr Catheter: a Prospective, Randomized Trial
Version:2Date:29 July 2014
Reviewer: Bharat Joshi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision:
1. The authors should describe the primary and secondary endpoints adequately
in the materials and methods section. It is not clear how reproducibly the
effectiveness of bile duct drainage was evaluated among patients using these
catheters. Whether these patients developed any clinical symptoms? Did authors
observe any correlation between bilirubin drainage and improvement in health of
the patients? This information should be included in the materials and methods
section and assessment should be described in Results section.
2. Secondly, they should provide information how these patients were clinically
examined for their levels of discomfort in materials and methods section. The
manuscript does not provide how clinical presentations corroborated the
questionnaire for assessing the levels of discomfort. The authors should describe
this issue adequately in Results section.
Minor Comments:
3. Some references are redundant and do not add any additional information.
Please keep the key references that support the theme of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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 Nasobiliary Drainage for Obstructive Jaundice Using Either a 5
Fr or 7 Fr Catheter: a Prospective, Randomized Trial
Version:2Date:29 July 2014
Reviewer: Bharat Joshi
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revision:
1. The authors should describe the primary and secondary endpoints adequately
in the materials and methods section. It is not clear how reproducibly the
effectiveness of bile duct drainage was evaluated among patients using these
catheters. Whether these patients developed any clinical symptoms? Did authors
observe any correlation between bilirubin drainage and improvement in health of
the patients? This information should be included in the materials and methods
section and assessment should be described in Results section.
2. Secondly, they should provide information how these patients were clinically
examined for their levels of discomfort in materials and methods section. The
manuscript does not provide how clinical presentations corroborated the
questionnaire for assessing the levels of discomfort. The authors should describe
this issue adequately in Results section.
Minor Comments:
3. Some references are redundant and do not add any additional information.
Please keep the key references that support the theme of the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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