Reviewer's report
Title:The addition of a pH-sensitive gel improves microemulsion stability for the
targeted removal of colonic ammonia
Version: 6Date:6 March 2011
Reviewer: Francisco Gude
Reviewer's report:
After reading the manuscript , this reviewer is not able to understand the study
design.
Methods Section,Paragraph on page 6:"18 rats are randomized into three
groups." The first group consists of rats with a three-way pipe that was placed at
the gastroduodenal junction.
So what are the groups containing the rats given ME-RCA or MBG-RCA?
Or ME-RCA and MBG-RCA were administered to all rats?
Is there a control group? Is this group containing 6 rats?
The design is confusing.
Perhaps a flow chart may help to describe the study design.
In the statistical analysis, the authors have used repeated measures analysis of
variance and t-test. Which groups do they compare? Which times are they
considering in the comparisons?
It is difficult to understand, and even more so if the study design is confusing.
In results, the authors mentioned that the clearance rates of ME-RCA and
MBG-RCA for ammonia in the artificial colonic fluid were 51.9 ± 1.85% and 55.92
± 4.76%, respectively.
How the data are expressed? Mean ± SD or mean ± SE?
In summary, the authors should be more clear and precise with the study design
and data analysis.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:The addition of a pH-sensitive gel improves microemulsion stability for the
targeted removal of colonic ammonia
Version: 6Date:6 March 2011
Reviewer: Francisco Gude
Reviewer's report:
After reading the manuscript , this reviewer is not able to understand the study
design.
Methods Section,Paragraph on page 6:"18 rats are randomized into three
groups." The first group consists of rats with a three-way pipe that was placed at
the gastroduodenal junction.
So what are the groups containing the rats given ME-RCA or MBG-RCA?
Or ME-RCA and MBG-RCA were administered to all rats?
Is there a control group? Is this group containing 6 rats?
The design is confusing.
Perhaps a flow chart may help to describe the study design.
In the statistical analysis, the authors have used repeated measures analysis of
variance and t-test. Which groups do they compare? Which times are they
considering in the comparisons?
It is difficult to understand, and even more so if the study design is confusing.
In results, the authors mentioned that the clearance rates of ME-RCA and
MBG-RCA for ammonia in the artificial colonic fluid were 51.9 ± 1.85% and 55.92
± 4.76%, respectively.
How the data are expressed? Mean ± SD or mean ± SE?
In summary, the authors should be more clear and precise with the study design
and data analysis.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The addition of a pH-sensitive gel improves microemulsion stability for the
targeted removal of colonic ammonia
Version: 6Date:6 March 2011
Reviewer: Francisco Gude
Reviewer's report:
After reading the manuscript , this reviewer is not able to understand the study
design.
Methods Section,Paragraph on page 6:"18 rats are randomized into three
groups." The first group consists of rats with a three-way pipe that was placed at
the gastroduodenal junction.
So what are the groups containing the rats given ME-RCA or MBG-RCA?
Or ME-RCA and MBG-RCA were administered to all rats?
Is there a control group? Is this group containing 6 rats?
The design is confusing.
Perhaps a flow chart may help to describe the study design.
In the statistical analysis, the authors have used repeated measures analysis of
variance and t-test. Which groups do they compare? Which times are they
considering in the comparisons?
It is difficult to understand, and even more so if the study design is confusing.
In results, the authors mentioned that the clearance rates of ME-RCA and
MBG-RCA for ammonia in the artificial colonic fluid were 51.9 ± 1.85% and 55.92
± 4.76%, respectively.
How the data are expressed? Mean ± SD or mean ± SE?
In summary, the authors should be more clear and precise with the study design
and data analysis.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant