Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three days Ertapenem versus three days
Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 2Date:27 March 2012
Reviewer: Dimitrios Matthaiou
Reviewer's report:
It is a paper regarding the comparison of different short regimens for the
treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
Major compulsory comments
1. The manuscript needs extensive editing.
2. The introduction is almost identical to the discussion.
3. There are roughly 10 references and all of them are found in the introduction.
More references should be added.
4. New guidelines of antimicrobial therapy have been published. Please update.
5. There are problems regarding the comparison of ertapenem with
ampicillin/sulbactam, as the latter is not suggested due to high rates of resistance
to this agent among community-acquired E. coli. Furthermore, most relevant
papers compare ertapenem to ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam or similarly
potent agents. Please comment on that.
6. The figures are redundant. I suggest to keep only the one showing statistically
significant difference between the two regimens.
7. Summarizing the findings in a table or two would be very helpful.
8. Please clarify the diagnosis criteria. It is not clear how it was done. The
patients were diagnosed before or after surgery? Did the protocol include the use
of laboratory and imaging examinations?
9. Patients started antibiotic therapy before surgery and then received the
studied regimens. If the antibiotics before surgery were ertapenem or
amicillin/sulbactam then the duration of therapy was not 3-days long. Otherwise, I
suggest the authors report which were the agents. If there are many different
ones, I suggest the authors conduct sub-analyses.
10. There are no microbiologic and resistancedata of the cultures taken. A table
with such data would be very helpful.
11. There are no data regarding treatment failures. What were the pathogens?
Were there any resistant strains? What did they receive next? More data should
be reported.
Minor essential revisions
1. Inclusion criteria were put in the Statistical analysis section. Please move it in
the correct section.
2. Some percentages are wrongfully calculated.
Discretionary revisions
1. I suggest to change the trade name of ampicilli/sulbactam to the
pharmacologic one.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:T.E.A. Study, Three days Ertapenem versus three days
Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 2Date:27 March 2012
Reviewer: Dimitrios Matthaiou
Reviewer's report:
It is a paper regarding the comparison of different short regimens for the
treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
Major compulsory comments
1. The manuscript needs extensive editing.
2. The introduction is almost identical to the discussion.
3. There are roughly 10 references and all of them are found in the introduction.
More references should be added.
4. New guidelines of antimicrobial therapy have been published. Please update.
5. There are problems regarding the comparison of ertapenem with
ampicillin/sulbactam, as the latter is not suggested due to high rates of resistance
to this agent among community-acquired E. coli. Furthermore, most relevant
papers compare ertapenem to ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam or similarly
potent agents. Please comment on that.
6. The figures are redundant. I suggest to keep only the one showing statistically
significant difference between the two regimens.
7. Summarizing the findings in a table or two would be very helpful.
8. Please clarify the diagnosis criteria. It is not clear how it was done. The
patients were diagnosed before or after surgery? Did the protocol include the use
of laboratory and imaging examinations?
9. Patients started antibiotic therapy before surgery and then received the
studied regimens. If the antibiotics before surgery were ertapenem or
amicillin/sulbactam then the duration of therapy was not 3-days long. Otherwise, I
suggest the authors report which were the agents. If there are many different
ones, I suggest the authors conduct sub-analyses.
10. There are no microbiologic and resistancedata of the cultures taken. A table
with such data would be very helpful.
11. There are no data regarding treatment failures. What were the pathogens?
Were there any resistant strains? What did they receive next? More data should
be reported.
Minor essential revisions
1. Inclusion criteria were put in the Statistical analysis section. Please move it in
the correct section.
2. Some percentages are wrongfully calculated.
Discretionary revisions
1. I suggest to change the trade name of ampicilli/sulbactam to the
pharmacologic one.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:T.E.A. Study, Three days Ertapenem versus three days
Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 2Date:27 March 2012
Reviewer: Dimitrios Matthaiou
Reviewer's report:
It is a paper regarding the comparison of different short regimens for the
treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
Major compulsory comments
1. The manuscript needs extensive editing.
2. The introduction is almost identical to the discussion.
3. There are roughly 10 references and all of them are found in the introduction.
More references should be added.
4. New guidelines of antimicrobial therapy have been published. Please update.
5. There are problems regarding the comparison of ertapenem with
ampicillin/sulbactam, as the latter is not suggested due to high rates of resistance
to this agent among community-acquired E. coli. Furthermore, most relevant
papers compare ertapenem to ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam or similarly
potent agents. Please comment on that.
6. The figures are redundant. I suggest to keep only the one showing statistically
significant difference between the two regimens.
7. Summarizing the findings in a table or two would be very helpful.
8. Please clarify the diagnosis criteria. It is not clear how it was done. The
patients were diagnosed before or after surgery? Did the protocol include the use
of laboratory and imaging examinations?
9. Patients started antibiotic therapy before surgery and then received the
studied regimens. If the antibiotics before surgery were ertapenem or
amicillin/sulbactam then the duration of therapy was not 3-days long. Otherwise, I
suggest the authors report which were the agents. If there are many different
ones, I suggest the authors conduct sub-analyses.
10. There are no microbiologic and resistancedata of the cultures taken. A table
with such data would be very helpful.
11. There are no data regarding treatment failures. What were the pathogens?
Were there any resistant strains? What did they receive next? More data should
be reported.
Minor essential revisions
1. Inclusion criteria were put in the Statistical analysis section. Please move it in
the correct section.
2. Some percentages are wrongfully calculated.
Discretionary revisions
1. I suggest to change the trade name of ampicilli/sulbactam to the
pharmacologic one.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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