Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 6Date:12 July 2011
Reviewer: Angela Woodiwiss
Reviewer's report:
Major COmpulsory Revisions
The data are indeed interesting and of clinical relevance. However I have some
reservations with regards to the statistical analysis and the translation of the
doses into clinical doses.
Regarding the statisitical analysis, the authors have assessed percentage
changes in order to account for differences in baseline data. However a more
robust analysis is to perform a two-way ANOVA (intervention, group) with
adjustments for baseline data.
With regards to the doses, the authors in their methods mention that the dose
range encompased the ED50; however they don't mention what the ED50 is nor
translate their ex vivo doses into approximate in vivo doses.
Regarding the in vivo data, the author show a decrease in HR whcih is simila rto
previosu data but yet an increase in LVESP and +dP/dtmax. Where there
differences in carotid blood pressures between the groups? The authors mention
in the discussion that blood pressure was normal, but no values are given in the
manuscript. These must be provided.
The construction of pressure-volume curves in systole and in diastole would
greatly enhance the validity and interpretation of the ex vivo data, especially if
this data is aimed to guide the safety of use of propofol at mild to intermediate
doses in obstructive jaundice.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declear that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 6Date:12 July 2011
Reviewer: Angela Woodiwiss
Reviewer's report:
Major COmpulsory Revisions
The data are indeed interesting and of clinical relevance. However I have some
reservations with regards to the statistical analysis and the translation of the
doses into clinical doses.
Regarding the statisitical analysis, the authors have assessed percentage
changes in order to account for differences in baseline data. However a more
robust analysis is to perform a two-way ANOVA (intervention, group) with
adjustments for baseline data.
With regards to the doses, the authors in their methods mention that the dose
range encompased the ED50; however they don't mention what the ED50 is nor
translate their ex vivo doses into approximate in vivo doses.
Regarding the in vivo data, the author show a decrease in HR whcih is simila rto
previosu data but yet an increase in LVESP and +dP/dtmax. Where there
differences in carotid blood pressures between the groups? The authors mention
in the discussion that blood pressure was normal, but no values are given in the
manuscript. These must be provided.
The construction of pressure-volume curves in systole and in diastole would
greatly enhance the validity and interpretation of the ex vivo data, especially if
this data is aimed to guide the safety of use of propofol at mild to intermediate
doses in obstructive jaundice.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declear that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:In vivo and ex vivo effects of propofol on myocardial performance in rats
with obstructive jaundice
Version: 6Date:12 July 2011
Reviewer: Angela Woodiwiss
Reviewer's report:
Major COmpulsory Revisions
The data are indeed interesting and of clinical relevance. However I have some
reservations with regards to the statistical analysis and the translation of the
doses into clinical doses.
Regarding the statisitical analysis, the authors have assessed percentage
changes in order to account for differences in baseline data. However a more
robust analysis is to perform a two-way ANOVA (intervention, group) with
adjustments for baseline data.
With regards to the doses, the authors in their methods mention that the dose
range encompased the ED50; however they don't mention what the ED50 is nor
translate their ex vivo doses into approximate in vivo doses.
Regarding the in vivo data, the author show a decrease in HR whcih is simila rto
previosu data but yet an increase in LVESP and +dP/dtmax. Where there
differences in carotid blood pressures between the groups? The authors mention
in the discussion that blood pressure was normal, but no values are given in the
manuscript. These must be provided.
The construction of pressure-volume curves in systole and in diastole would
greatly enhance the validity and interpretation of the ex vivo data, especially if
this data is aimed to guide the safety of use of propofol at mild to intermediate
doses in obstructive jaundice.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declear that I have no competing interests
assistant