Reviewer's report
Title:A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate
the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography
Version: 1Date:12 March 2013
Reviewer: Ana Ignajtovic
Reviewer's report:
A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the
value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT Colonography
Peer review
This is an original and interesting article. In general it is well designed and
reported although there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
1. Abstract – results line 3 – requires p values
2. Methods – population – line 1: Were the pts consecutive?
3. Methods – intervention – there are no comments about allocation concealment
mechanisms – please amend. Who recruited the pts and who assigned the
treatment – please clarify
4. Outcome measures – should come earlier in the paper – only primary
outcomes stated- please clarify if the secondary outcomes were set at the
beginning of the study – this refers again to Conclusion line 4 – all the other
outcomes are at present hypothesis generating (reduced procedural time,
recovery time and safety) as study not powered to assess – please clarify.
5. Table 1 – please insert total numbers as well as percentages
6. it is of great significance that 16/36 pts experienced episodes of desaturation –
please elaborate in the conclusion in terms of safety
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate
the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography
Version: 1Date:12 March 2013
Reviewer: Ana Ignajtovic
Reviewer's report:
A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the
value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT Colonography
Peer review
This is an original and interesting article. In general it is well designed and
reported although there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
1. Abstract – results line 3 – requires p values
2. Methods – population – line 1: Were the pts consecutive?
3. Methods – intervention – there are no comments about allocation concealment
mechanisms – please amend. Who recruited the pts and who assigned the
treatment – please clarify
4. Outcome measures – should come earlier in the paper – only primary
outcomes stated- please clarify if the secondary outcomes were set at the
beginning of the study – this refers again to Conclusion line 4 – all the other
outcomes are at present hypothesis generating (reduced procedural time,
recovery time and safety) as study not powered to assess – please clarify.
5. Table 1 – please insert total numbers as well as percentages
6. it is of great significance that 16/36 pts experienced episodes of desaturation –
please elaborate in the conclusion in terms of safety
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate
the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography
Version: 1Date:12 March 2013
Reviewer: Ana Ignajtovic
Reviewer's report:
A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the
value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT Colonography
Peer review
This is an original and interesting article. In general it is well designed and
reported although there are a few issues that need to be addressed.
1. Abstract – results line 3 – requires p values
2. Methods – population – line 1: Were the pts consecutive?
3. Methods – intervention – there are no comments about allocation concealment
mechanisms – please amend. Who recruited the pts and who assigned the
treatment – please clarify
4. Outcome measures – should come earlier in the paper – only primary
outcomes stated- please clarify if the secondary outcomes were set at the
beginning of the study – this refers again to Conclusion line 4 – all the other
outcomes are at present hypothesis generating (reduced procedural time,
recovery time and safety) as study not powered to assess – please clarify.
5. Table 1 – please insert total numbers as well as percentages
6. it is of great significance that 16/36 pts experienced episodes of desaturation –
please elaborate in the conclusion in terms of safety
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant