Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:
22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles
Version:1Date:23 April 2015
Reviewer: Michael Huw Chapman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1.The measured outcomes reported in tables 4 and 5 are unclear without
referring to the methods and so I suggest that the data is either presented in
another format or the legend includes a brief description of how the data is
presented so that it can be more easily interpreted.
2. These data are retrospective review of data but this is not immediately clear
reading the abstract and methods to make it clear it is not an RCT. Also, I
imagine from reading the methods that the 2 groups were separated over time
with the older group sampled using the 22G needle and the newer group with the
25g needle. These gorups therefore may have introduced other bias such as
improved operator techniques so this requires clarification
Minor discretionary reviews:
1. The authors report other similar data from alternative published studies with
reported sensitivities of 64% - 95% but report their own sensitivity as 60% and
32%. The published series may overestimate the sensitivity of FNA sampling for
diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but this observation should be discussed further.
Other comments
1. Generally well written
2. The numbers included are small and so of limited value compared to already
published series.
3. The 2 groups, although not randomised and likely involve different time
frames, do appear sufficiently similar to make a comparison
4. Grouping of definite and supsicious for malignancy is debatable in terms of
suitability for clinical confirmation of cancer although in my view is acceptable.
This issue may need clarification and discussion
5. Presenting the data on other parameters such as quantity of blood staining is
of some clinical interest to those in the area and is therefore suitable for inclusion
but probably adds little to the 'bottom line' of the final diagnosis of cancer v no
cancer.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received a travel grant from the company who manufacture the
equipement assessed in this manuscript but this has no bearing on the question
assessed by the paper so should not be relevant.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:
22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles
Version:1Date:23 April 2015
Reviewer: Michael Huw Chapman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1.The measured outcomes reported in tables 4 and 5 are unclear without
referring to the methods and so I suggest that the data is either presented in
another format or the legend includes a brief description of how the data is
presented so that it can be more easily interpreted.
2. These data are retrospective review of data but this is not immediately clear
reading the abstract and methods to make it clear it is not an RCT. Also, I
imagine from reading the methods that the 2 groups were separated over time
with the older group sampled using the 22G needle and the newer group with the
25g needle. These gorups therefore may have introduced other bias such as
improved operator techniques so this requires clarification
Minor discretionary reviews:
1. The authors report other similar data from alternative published studies with
reported sensitivities of 64% - 95% but report their own sensitivity as 60% and
32%. The published series may overestimate the sensitivity of FNA sampling for
diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but this observation should be discussed further.
Other comments
1. Generally well written
2. The numbers included are small and so of limited value compared to already
published series.
3. The 2 groups, although not randomised and likely involve different time
frames, do appear sufficiently similar to make a comparison
4. Grouping of definite and supsicious for malignancy is debatable in terms of
suitability for clinical confirmation of cancer although in my view is acceptable.
This issue may need clarification and discussion
5. Presenting the data on other parameters such as quantity of blood staining is
of some clinical interest to those in the area and is therefore suitable for inclusion
but probably adds little to the 'bottom line' of the final diagnosis of cancer v no
cancer.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received a travel grant from the company who manufacture the
equipement assessed in this manuscript but this has no bearing on the question
assessed by the paper so should not be relevant.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:
22-gauge aspiration versus 25-gauge biopsy needles
Version:1Date:23 April 2015
Reviewer: Michael Huw Chapman
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions:
1.The measured outcomes reported in tables 4 and 5 are unclear without
referring to the methods and so I suggest that the data is either presented in
another format or the legend includes a brief description of how the data is
presented so that it can be more easily interpreted.
2. These data are retrospective review of data but this is not immediately clear
reading the abstract and methods to make it clear it is not an RCT. Also, I
imagine from reading the methods that the 2 groups were separated over time
with the older group sampled using the 22G needle and the newer group with the
25g needle. These gorups therefore may have introduced other bias such as
improved operator techniques so this requires clarification
Minor discretionary reviews:
1. The authors report other similar data from alternative published studies with
reported sensitivities of 64% - 95% but report their own sensitivity as 60% and
32%. The published series may overestimate the sensitivity of FNA sampling for
diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but this observation should be discussed further.
Other comments
1. Generally well written
2. The numbers included are small and so of limited value compared to already
published series.
3. The 2 groups, although not randomised and likely involve different time
frames, do appear sufficiently similar to make a comparison
4. Grouping of definite and supsicious for malignancy is debatable in terms of
suitability for clinical confirmation of cancer although in my view is acceptable.
This issue may need clarification and discussion
5. Presenting the data on other parameters such as quantity of blood staining is
of some clinical interest to those in the area and is therefore suitable for inclusion
but probably adds little to the 'bottom line' of the final diagnosis of cancer v no
cancer.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have received a travel grant from the company who manufacture the
equipement assessed in this manuscript but this has no bearing on the question
assessed by the paper so should not be relevant.
assistant