Reviewer's report
Title:The Clinical Presentations Of Ectopic Biliary Drainage To Duodenal Bulbus
And Stomach: Complicated Peptic Ulcer Formation And Recurrent Cholangitis
Attacks
Version: 2Date:19 June 2009
Reviewer: omar shah
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a series of 10 cases of etopic biliary drainage.Indeed it is a
rare phenomenon, and in day to day clinical practice, one must be aware of such
an entity. Although a good attempt for describing various points of concern, the
paper lacks the flow, systematic description and english language .This study
needs Major Compulsory Revisions and I would suggest the following:
A systematic description of various features is needed. The reader finds
scattered information and lack of direction in the study. It would be interesting if
the text is divided into headings and subheadings.
Introduction: It is far too long. After giving background, focus should be on what
you are presenting in this study.
Methods: Clearly define the inclusion & exclusion criteria of the study.It would be
worthwhile if this study_includes_description on the basis of Kanematu’s
classification.
No need to mention the make up of endoscope.
Results: Good, detailed, self explainatory tables would certainly reduce the
length of the text and readers would love to read it, as human mind is averse to
lengthy descriptions.There seems to be a contradictory statement in result
section.“All the patients except one were symptomatic” better replace this with
correct statement.
Treatment: A flow chart will improve the outlook of this study.
Followup: Details are very vital as such patients have recurrent symptoms.
Discussion: It is far too long and mandering.After the definition and incidences, a
comparative analysis with other studies is needed.A part of etiology, clinical
features, presentation and related factors for causing these features need to be
described. A para regarding Kanematu’s classification; its benefits both the
diagnostic and therapeutic may be added. Diagnostic and treatment modalities
should be described and comparative analysis with other studies may be made.
A final message may be put across.
Reviewer's report
Title:The Clinical Presentations Of Ectopic Biliary Drainage To Duodenal Bulbus
And Stomach: Complicated Peptic Ulcer Formation And Recurrent Cholangitis
Attacks
Version: 2Date:19 June 2009
Reviewer: omar shah
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a series of 10 cases of etopic biliary drainage.Indeed it is a
rare phenomenon, and in day to day clinical practice, one must be aware of such
an entity. Although a good attempt for describing various points of concern, the
paper lacks the flow, systematic description and english language .This study
needs Major Compulsory Revisions and I would suggest the following:
A systematic description of various features is needed. The reader finds
scattered information and lack of direction in the study. It would be interesting if
the text is divided into headings and subheadings.
Introduction: It is far too long. After giving background, focus should be on what
you are presenting in this study.
Methods: Clearly define the inclusion & exclusion criteria of the study.It would be
worthwhile if this study_includes_description on the basis of Kanematu’s
classification.
No need to mention the make up of endoscope.
Results: Good, detailed, self explainatory tables would certainly reduce the
length of the text and readers would love to read it, as human mind is averse to
lengthy descriptions.There seems to be a contradictory statement in result
section.“All the patients except one were symptomatic” better replace this with
correct statement.
Treatment: A flow chart will improve the outlook of this study.
Followup: Details are very vital as such patients have recurrent symptoms.
Discussion: It is far too long and mandering.After the definition and incidences, a
comparative analysis with other studies is needed.A part of etiology, clinical
features, presentation and related factors for causing these features need to be
described. A para regarding Kanematu’s classification; its benefits both the
diagnostic and therapeutic may be added. Diagnostic and treatment modalities
should be described and comparative analysis with other studies may be made.
A final message may be put across.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The Clinical Presentations Of Ectopic Biliary Drainage To Duodenal Bulbus
And Stomach: Complicated Peptic Ulcer Formation And Recurrent Cholangitis
Attacks
Version: 2Date:19 June 2009
Reviewer: omar shah
Reviewer's report:
The authors present a series of 10 cases of etopic biliary drainage.Indeed it is a
rare phenomenon, and in day to day clinical practice, one must be aware of such
an entity. Although a good attempt for describing various points of concern, the
paper lacks the flow, systematic description and english language .This study
needs Major Compulsory Revisions and I would suggest the following:
A systematic description of various features is needed. The reader finds
scattered information and lack of direction in the study. It would be interesting if
the text is divided into headings and subheadings.
Introduction: It is far too long. After giving background, focus should be on what
you are presenting in this study.
Methods: Clearly define the inclusion & exclusion criteria of the study.It would be
worthwhile if this study_includes_description on the basis of Kanematu’s
classification.
No need to mention the make up of endoscope.
Results: Good, detailed, self explainatory tables would certainly reduce the
length of the text and readers would love to read it, as human mind is averse to
lengthy descriptions.There seems to be a contradictory statement in result
section.“All the patients except one were symptomatic” better replace this with
correct statement.
Treatment: A flow chart will improve the outlook of this study.
Followup: Details are very vital as such patients have recurrent symptoms.
Discussion: It is far too long and mandering.After the definition and incidences, a
comparative analysis with other studies is needed.A part of etiology, clinical
features, presentation and related factors for causing these features need to be
described. A para regarding Kanematu’s classification; its benefits both the
diagnostic and therapeutic may be added. Diagnostic and treatment modalities
should be described and comparative analysis with other studies may be made.
A final message may be put across.
assistant