Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis
after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Results of a controlled
clinical trial.
Version:2Date:1 March 2015
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Well done study with reasonable technique and results (unlike some others) in a
generally LOW to mixed risk group of patients in whom PANCREATIC STENTS
WERE NOT PLACED TO PREVENT PEP.
The authors need to state above in abstract
They need to provide table with background variables of patient and procedure
related risks in treatment and control groups
Otherwise valuable addition to the literature
Minor comments/corrections below
65
Use of 3x amylase 2 hours after the procedure is VERY unusual, as often
markedly elevated but normalizes by next day. Usually use amylase/lipase within
24 hours (next day) plus pain requiring hosptializsation( see Cotton 1991) Why
this criteria for PEP?
200Then definition seems to change
PEP was considered the main outcome variable and was defined as the
development of
201 new or increased abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, and elevated
amylase or
202 lipase > 3x the upper limit of normal until 24 hours after the procedure, and
73
3 of them
74 belonged to the control group (p= 0.60). (3 of WHOM?)
124
There is no gold standard to prevent this complication. PERIOD then next
sentence....
figure 2 INdomethacin is misspelled (should be no e at end)
180
In any case was used with the purpose to prevent pancreatitis. ??does this mean
in NO case pancreatic stents were used with the purpose of preventing post ercp
pancreatitis?
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:
none
Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis
after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Results of a controlled
clinical trial.
Version:2Date:1 March 2015
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Well done study with reasonable technique and results (unlike some others) in a
generally LOW to mixed risk group of patients in whom PANCREATIC STENTS
WERE NOT PLACED TO PREVENT PEP.
The authors need to state above in abstract
They need to provide table with background variables of patient and procedure
related risks in treatment and control groups
Otherwise valuable addition to the literature
Minor comments/corrections below
65
Use of 3x amylase 2 hours after the procedure is VERY unusual, as often
markedly elevated but normalizes by next day. Usually use amylase/lipase within
24 hours (next day) plus pain requiring hosptializsation( see Cotton 1991) Why
this criteria for PEP?
200Then definition seems to change
PEP was considered the main outcome variable and was defined as the
development of
201 new or increased abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, and elevated
amylase or
202 lipase > 3x the upper limit of normal until 24 hours after the procedure, and
73
3 of them
74 belonged to the control group (p= 0.60). (3 of WHOM?)
124
There is no gold standard to prevent this complication. PERIOD then next
sentence....
figure 2 INdomethacin is misspelled (should be no e at end)
180
In any case was used with the purpose to prevent pancreatitis. ??does this mean
in NO case pancreatic stents were used with the purpose of preventing post ercp
pancreatitis?
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:
none
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis
after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Results of a controlled
clinical trial.
Version:2Date:1 March 2015
Reviewer: Martin Freeman
Reviewer's report:
Well done study with reasonable technique and results (unlike some others) in a
generally LOW to mixed risk group of patients in whom PANCREATIC STENTS
WERE NOT PLACED TO PREVENT PEP.
The authors need to state above in abstract
They need to provide table with background variables of patient and procedure
related risks in treatment and control groups
Otherwise valuable addition to the literature
Minor comments/corrections below
65
Use of 3x amylase 2 hours after the procedure is VERY unusual, as often
markedly elevated but normalizes by next day. Usually use amylase/lipase within
24 hours (next day) plus pain requiring hosptializsation( see Cotton 1991) Why
this criteria for PEP?
200Then definition seems to change
PEP was considered the main outcome variable and was defined as the
development of
201 new or increased abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, and elevated
amylase or
202 lipase > 3x the upper limit of normal until 24 hours after the procedure, and
73
3 of them
74 belonged to the control group (p= 0.60). (3 of WHOM?)
124
There is no gold standard to prevent this complication. PERIOD then next
sentence....
figure 2 INdomethacin is misspelled (should be no e at end)
180
In any case was used with the purpose to prevent pancreatitis. ??does this mean
in NO case pancreatic stents were used with the purpose of preventing post ercp
pancreatitis?
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:
none
assistant