Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three day Ertapenem versus three day Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 3Date:9 October 2012
Reviewer: Vitaliy Poylin
Reviewer's report:
Authors made significant improvement in the manuscript, and most of the
reviewers comments were addressed. Two study groups are now much better
defined. There are a few adjustments that I think should be made
Minor revisions
1. Although authors included better explanation for diverticulitis patients who
were taken to surgery, but based on there description, most of the patients
should have been treated with antibiotics (either one of the study antibiotics,
Ertapenem would probably be a better one) and multiple studies show that would
have avoided surgery to most of these patients. At least mention of that this is
not necessarily standard of care (at least based on limited description provided)
2. duration of antibiotics – explanation provided by authors is acceptable, should
be better spelled out in the paper itself
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.
Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three day Ertapenem versus three day Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 3Date:9 October 2012
Reviewer: Vitaliy Poylin
Reviewer's report:
Authors made significant improvement in the manuscript, and most of the
reviewers comments were addressed. Two study groups are now much better
defined. There are a few adjustments that I think should be made
Minor revisions
1. Although authors included better explanation for diverticulitis patients who
were taken to surgery, but based on there description, most of the patients
should have been treated with antibiotics (either one of the study antibiotics,
Ertapenem would probably be a better one) and multiple studies show that would
have avoided surgery to most of these patients. At least mention of that this is
not necessarily standard of care (at least based on limited description provided)
2. duration of antibiotics – explanation provided by authors is acceptable, should
be better spelled out in the paper itself
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.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:T.E.A. Study, Three day Ertapenem versus three day Ampicillin-sulbactam
Version: 3Date:9 October 2012
Reviewer: Vitaliy Poylin
Reviewer's report:
Authors made significant improvement in the manuscript, and most of the
reviewers comments were addressed. Two study groups are now much better
defined. There are a few adjustments that I think should be made
Minor revisions
1. Although authors included better explanation for diverticulitis patients who
were taken to surgery, but based on there description, most of the patients
should have been treated with antibiotics (either one of the study antibiotics,
Ertapenem would probably be a better one) and multiple studies show that would
have avoided surgery to most of these patients. At least mention of that this is
not necessarily standard of care (at least based on limited description provided)
2. duration of antibiotics – explanation provided by authors is acceptable, should
be better spelled out in the paper itself
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.
assistant