Reviewer's report
Title:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:21 June 2009
Reviewer: Jiannis Vlachogiannakos
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors retrospectively analyzed the possible differences in
rebleeding behavior after endoscopic band ligation (EBL).
It was quite difficult to follow this study as it is not clear to me what actually the
authors wanted to investigate. They have collected different cohorts of patients
(before bleeding, at bleeding, after bleeding) and it seems they are planning to
define the incidence and severity of complications after EBL. However, in the
abstract there is no aim of the study. In the background (Page 4, last paragraph),
the aim is converted to a conclusion. Finally, in the discussion (Page 10, 2nd
paragraph), they present the aim of the study as the proposal of an algorithm for
the surveillance of patients after EBL. This algorithm was never proposed in the
results or elsewhere in the manuscript.
The authors describe as common practice the hospitalization of the patients after
EBL until drop-off of all ligation bands, proven by endoscopy. This is not true.
EBL is regularly performed on an out-patient basis, in cases of primary or
secondary prevention. After EBL, the patients remain in the hospital for 2-3 hours
under observation and then, they leave. EBL is a rather safe procedure with low
incidence of complications. Therefore, hospitalization of all patients will
enormously increase the cost with a minimal benefit in the management of
complications.
The authors need to redefine precisely the aims of their study, to describe the
methods of data collection i.e. the follow-up period, the surveillance schedule of
endoscopies, to provide clear data and to discuss their results and make
suggestions taking into consideration the currently accepted clinical practice.
Finally, the manuscript must be shortened.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:21 June 2009
Reviewer: Jiannis Vlachogiannakos
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors retrospectively analyzed the possible differences in
rebleeding behavior after endoscopic band ligation (EBL).
It was quite difficult to follow this study as it is not clear to me what actually the
authors wanted to investigate. They have collected different cohorts of patients
(before bleeding, at bleeding, after bleeding) and it seems they are planning to
define the incidence and severity of complications after EBL. However, in the
abstract there is no aim of the study. In the background (Page 4, last paragraph),
the aim is converted to a conclusion. Finally, in the discussion (Page 10, 2nd
paragraph), they present the aim of the study as the proposal of an algorithm for
the surveillance of patients after EBL. This algorithm was never proposed in the
results or elsewhere in the manuscript.
The authors describe as common practice the hospitalization of the patients after
EBL until drop-off of all ligation bands, proven by endoscopy. This is not true.
EBL is regularly performed on an out-patient basis, in cases of primary or
secondary prevention. After EBL, the patients remain in the hospital for 2-3 hours
under observation and then, they leave. EBL is a rather safe procedure with low
incidence of complications. Therefore, hospitalization of all patients will
enormously increase the cost with a minimal benefit in the management of
complications.
The authors need to redefine precisely the aims of their study, to describe the
methods of data collection i.e. the follow-up period, the surveillance schedule of
endoscopies, to provide clear data and to discuss their results and make
suggestions taking into consideration the currently accepted clinical practice.
Finally, the manuscript must be shortened.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Differences in Rebleeding Behavior after Endoscopic Band Ligation: A
Retrospective Analysis
Version: 1Date:21 June 2009
Reviewer: Jiannis Vlachogiannakos
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors retrospectively analyzed the possible differences in
rebleeding behavior after endoscopic band ligation (EBL).
It was quite difficult to follow this study as it is not clear to me what actually the
authors wanted to investigate. They have collected different cohorts of patients
(before bleeding, at bleeding, after bleeding) and it seems they are planning to
define the incidence and severity of complications after EBL. However, in the
abstract there is no aim of the study. In the background (Page 4, last paragraph),
the aim is converted to a conclusion. Finally, in the discussion (Page 10, 2nd
paragraph), they present the aim of the study as the proposal of an algorithm for
the surveillance of patients after EBL. This algorithm was never proposed in the
results or elsewhere in the manuscript.
The authors describe as common practice the hospitalization of the patients after
EBL until drop-off of all ligation bands, proven by endoscopy. This is not true.
EBL is regularly performed on an out-patient basis, in cases of primary or
secondary prevention. After EBL, the patients remain in the hospital for 2-3 hours
under observation and then, they leave. EBL is a rather safe procedure with low
incidence of complications. Therefore, hospitalization of all patients will
enormously increase the cost with a minimal benefit in the management of
complications.
The authors need to redefine precisely the aims of their study, to describe the
methods of data collection i.e. the follow-up period, the surveillance schedule of
endoscopies, to provide clear data and to discuss their results and make
suggestions taking into consideration the currently accepted clinical practice.
Finally, the manuscript must be shortened.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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