Reviewer's report
Title:Hosptial-acquired invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with hepatic
failure
Version: 3Date:19 November 2007
Reviewer: saad nseir
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
In this revised version, authors have convincingly addressed most of my
comments. However, substantial English editing is still needed. In addition, some
clarifications would be helpful.
1. In their comments, authors stated that TBLB was performed in 7 patients and
PPLB in 2 patients. However, in the revised manuscript, they stated that stated
that TBLB was performed in 8 patients and PPLB in 4 patients. Please clarify.
2. In their comments, authors stated that complications (one pneumothorax and 2
haemoptysis) occurred in 3 patients after lung biopsy. This should be added to
the manuscript.
3. 9 of 12 (75%) biopsies performed for suspicion of IPA confirmed this
diagnosis. This rate is impressive and should be commented in discussion
section.
4. Results section is rather lengthy and should be shortened. Some of the results
could be presented in a table.
5. Pages should be numbered and modifications should be highlighted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Hosptial-acquired invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with hepatic
failure
Version: 3Date:19 November 2007
Reviewer: saad nseir
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
In this revised version, authors have convincingly addressed most of my
comments. However, substantial English editing is still needed. In addition, some
clarifications would be helpful.
1. In their comments, authors stated that TBLB was performed in 7 patients and
PPLB in 2 patients. However, in the revised manuscript, they stated that stated
that TBLB was performed in 8 patients and PPLB in 4 patients. Please clarify.
2. In their comments, authors stated that complications (one pneumothorax and 2
haemoptysis) occurred in 3 patients after lung biopsy. This should be added to
the manuscript.
3. 9 of 12 (75%) biopsies performed for suspicion of IPA confirmed this
diagnosis. This rate is impressive and should be commented in discussion
section.
4. Results section is rather lengthy and should be shortened. Some of the results
could be presented in a table.
5. Pages should be numbered and modifications should be highlighted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Hosptial-acquired invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with hepatic
failure
Version: 3Date:19 November 2007
Reviewer: saad nseir
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
In this revised version, authors have convincingly addressed most of my
comments. However, substantial English editing is still needed. In addition, some
clarifications would be helpful.
1. In their comments, authors stated that TBLB was performed in 7 patients and
PPLB in 2 patients. However, in the revised manuscript, they stated that stated
that TBLB was performed in 8 patients and PPLB in 4 patients. Please clarify.
2. In their comments, authors stated that complications (one pneumothorax and 2
haemoptysis) occurred in 3 patients after lung biopsy. This should be added to
the manuscript.
3. 9 of 12 (75%) biopsies performed for suspicion of IPA confirmed this
diagnosis. This rate is impressive and should be commented in discussion
section.
4. Results section is rather lengthy and should be shortened. Some of the results
could be presented in a table.
5. Pages should be numbered and modifications should be highlighted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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