Reviewer's report 
 Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled Title: 
trials 
 1  13 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Chris Forsmark Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: This meta-analysis is done the right way and the inclusion of only high quality studies makes the 
results quite convincing. I think you should be a little stronger in your conclusions- in the abstract you state 
the result "is credible to some extent" which is a very lukewarm endorsement of your results. I think it would 
be better to state directly that the analysis shows the drug is ineffective. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached): The scientific approach is impeccable but the use of English is confusing in many areas. The 
manuscript will need revision by someone with strong editorial experience and clear command of the 
language. It would also be appropriatee to discuss the 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled Title: 
trials 
 1  13 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Chris Forsmark Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: This meta-analysis is done the right way and the inclusion of only high quality studies makes the 
results quite convincing. I think you should be a little stronger in your conclusions- in the abstract you state 
the result "is credible to some extent" which is a very lukewarm endorsement of your results. I think it would 
be better to state directly that the analysis shows the drug is ineffective. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached): The scientific approach is impeccable but the use of English is confusing in many areas. The 
manuscript will need revision by someone with strong editorial experience and clear command of the 
language. It would also be appropriatee to discuss the 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled Title: 
trials 
 1  13 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Chris Forsmark Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General: This meta-analysis is done the right way and the inclusion of only high quality studies makes the 
results quite convincing. I think you should be a little stronger in your conclusions- in the abstract you state 
the result "is credible to some extent" which is a very lukewarm endorsement of your results. I think it would 
be better to state directly that the analysis shows the drug is ineffective. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached): The scientific approach is impeccable but the use of English is confusing in many areas. The 
manuscript will need revision by someone with strong editorial experience and clear command of the 
language. It would also be appropriatee to discuss the 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant