Reviewer's report 
 Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled Title: 
trials 
 1  19 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Matzen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1.A met aanalysis of recent randomised controlled trials of good standard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
2. It should be demonstrated in the discussion that the positive result of the metaanalysis by Andriulli (20) 
from 2000 as to effect of Gabexate depend on only one study by Cavalini (4) as the two other studies are very small, and only on post-ERCP pain. 3. The main results of the sensitivity analyses should be compared in a table to those of the main analysis. 
4. The last sentence in the second last paragrap of the discussion is unclear to me, and should be either 
omited or referenced. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
4. The last paragraph of the discussion should be omitted (or referenced) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Reviewer's report 
 Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled Title: 
trials 
 1  19 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Matzen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1.A met aanalysis of recent randomised controlled trials of good standard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
2. It should be demonstrated in the discussion that the positive result of the metaanalysis by Andriulli (20) 
from 2000 as to effect of Gabexate depend on only one study by Cavalini (4) as the two other studies are very small, and only on post-ERCP pain. 3. The main results of the sensitivity analyses should be compared in a table to those of the main analysis. 
4. The last sentence in the second last paragrap of the discussion is unclear to me, and should be either 
omited or referenced. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
4. The last paragraph of the discussion should be omitted (or referenced) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled Title: 
trials 
 1  19 December 2006 Version: Date: 
 Peter Matzen Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
1.A met aanalysis of recent randomised controlled trials of good standard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
2. It should be demonstrated in the discussion that the positive result of the metaanalysis by Andriulli (20) 
from 2000 as to effect of Gabexate depend on only one study by Cavalini (4) as the two other studies are very small, and only on post-ERCP pain. 3. The main results of the sensitivity analyses should be compared in a table to those of the main analysis. 
4. The last sentence in the second last paragrap of the discussion is unclear to me, and should be either 
omited or referenced. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
4. The last paragraph of the discussion should be omitted (or referenced) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
None 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
assistant