Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Masayuki Kitano
Reviewer's report:
Major point:
This study reported that little change was observed in size of gallbladder polyps
by fixed follow-up (30 and 84 months) in 34 subjects. It is a pity that gallbladder
polyps were found only in 34 subjects although a large number of subjects (2415)
underwent ultrasonography. In addition, authors have not confirmed any
neoplastic lesions. In order to decide the appropriate follow-up interval, more
patients with polyps including neoplastic lesions which increase in size during
follow-up should be needed. Otherwise, it would be more interesting how many
polyps in this study grow and are found to be neoplasms after following
observation of 10 years or later.
Minor points
1. Authors should mention which diameter among three axes was employed for
the size in the section of Results. Maximum or mean diameter ? (Page 4, Line
13)
2. In the section of Material, description of focus point and MI setting is
recommended.
3. Growth of polyps may be different between pedunculate or broad based ones.
How many polyps were broad based ?
4. In the section of Results, misspelling of the size “10cm” should be corrected
for “10mm” (Page 10 Line 17).
5. In the section of Conclusion, authors mentioned “This study adds evidence
that the currently recommended follow-up intervals of 6 to 12 months ………..in
diameter appear adequate.” However, their follow-up intervals were 3-4 years.
From their results, adequate follow-up intervals cannot be determined.
6. I also recommend authors to describe how many subjects with gallbladder
neoplasms were found among 2415 subjects and their size and ultrasound
feature.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Masayuki Kitano
Reviewer's report:
Major point:
This study reported that little change was observed in size of gallbladder polyps
by fixed follow-up (30 and 84 months) in 34 subjects. It is a pity that gallbladder
polyps were found only in 34 subjects although a large number of subjects (2415)
underwent ultrasonography. In addition, authors have not confirmed any
neoplastic lesions. In order to decide the appropriate follow-up interval, more
patients with polyps including neoplastic lesions which increase in size during
follow-up should be needed. Otherwise, it would be more interesting how many
polyps in this study grow and are found to be neoplasms after following
observation of 10 years or later.
Minor points
1. Authors should mention which diameter among three axes was employed for
the size in the section of Results. Maximum or mean diameter ? (Page 4, Line
13)
2. In the section of Material, description of focus point and MI setting is
recommended.
3. Growth of polyps may be different between pedunculate or broad based ones.
How many polyps were broad based ?
4. In the section of Results, misspelling of the size “10cm” should be corrected
for “10mm” (Page 10 Line 17).
5. In the section of Conclusion, authors mentioned “This study adds evidence
that the currently recommended follow-up intervals of 6 to 12 months ………..in
diameter appear adequate.” However, their follow-up intervals were 3-4 years.
From their results, adequate follow-up intervals cannot be determined.
6. I also recommend authors to describe how many subjects with gallbladder
neoplasms were found among 2415 subjects and their size and ultrasound
feature.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Ultrasonographically Detected Gallbladder Polyps: A Reason for Concern?
A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study
Version: 2Date:18 June 2008
Reviewer: Masayuki Kitano
Reviewer's report:
Major point:
This study reported that little change was observed in size of gallbladder polyps
by fixed follow-up (30 and 84 months) in 34 subjects. It is a pity that gallbladder
polyps were found only in 34 subjects although a large number of subjects (2415)
underwent ultrasonography. In addition, authors have not confirmed any
neoplastic lesions. In order to decide the appropriate follow-up interval, more
patients with polyps including neoplastic lesions which increase in size during
follow-up should be needed. Otherwise, it would be more interesting how many
polyps in this study grow and are found to be neoplasms after following
observation of 10 years or later.
Minor points
1. Authors should mention which diameter among three axes was employed for
the size in the section of Results. Maximum or mean diameter ? (Page 4, Line
13)
2. In the section of Material, description of focus point and MI setting is
recommended.
3. Growth of polyps may be different between pedunculate or broad based ones.
How many polyps were broad based ?
4. In the section of Results, misspelling of the size “10cm” should be corrected
for “10mm” (Page 10 Line 17).
5. In the section of Conclusion, authors mentioned “This study adds evidence
that the currently recommended follow-up intervals of 6 to 12 months ………..in
diameter appear adequate.” However, their follow-up intervals were 3-4 years.
From their results, adequate follow-up intervals cannot be determined.
6. I also recommend authors to describe how many subjects with gallbladder
neoplasms were found among 2415 subjects and their size and ultrasound
feature.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant