Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:2Date:2 December 2013
Reviewer: Marcel M Spanier
Reviewer's report:
Acute pancreatitis (AP) related mortality is an important issue. Normally the 30
days mortality rate is reported, the authors focus on the 60 days mortality rate.
Besides the general mortality, the authors also analyze the influence of five
different factors for two main causes of AP (gallstones and alcohol).
The strength of this study is that the data are linked with different databases.
However the aetiology is known of by 35% of the total population.
Major concern, it is not known/ discussed if the authors checked and corrected
for unique cases (normally only 80% cases are really unique).
Another major concern is the fact that first attack AP's and recurrent AP's are not
seperatly analyzed (see p 7 definition of new cases).
Minor concerns:
The five factors analyzed are very mixed from social deprivation to influence of
EWTDs. To create a more easily to read manuscript the authors can probably
skip some two of them.
-the five factors analyzed should be discussed through the manuscript in the
same order.
-p 10 the percentage of total aetiology is not 100% but only 70.5%
p10 how can galstones ( in 13%) lead to death? This needs an explanation
-p14 study limitations: some should be added to the methods section, not in the
discussion section. some cases were excluded.
-table 2, 3 and 4 have a great overlap, they should be shorter.
-the five factors analyzed should not be mentioned as prognostic factors in the
text of the different tables, this is not the correct term and even misleading.Op 1
dec. 2013, om 22:12 heeft Spanier, Marcel het volgende geschreven:
Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:2Date:2 December 2013
Reviewer: Marcel M Spanier
Reviewer's report:
Acute pancreatitis (AP) related mortality is an important issue. Normally the 30
days mortality rate is reported, the authors focus on the 60 days mortality rate.
Besides the general mortality, the authors also analyze the influence of five
different factors for two main causes of AP (gallstones and alcohol).
The strength of this study is that the data are linked with different databases.
However the aetiology is known of by 35% of the total population.
Major concern, it is not known/ discussed if the authors checked and corrected
for unique cases (normally only 80% cases are really unique).
Another major concern is the fact that first attack AP's and recurrent AP's are not
seperatly analyzed (see p 7 definition of new cases).
Minor concerns:
The five factors analyzed are very mixed from social deprivation to influence of
EWTDs. To create a more easily to read manuscript the authors can probably
skip some two of them.
-the five factors analyzed should be discussed through the manuscript in the
same order.
-p 10 the percentage of total aetiology is not 100% but only 70.5%
p10 how can galstones ( in 13%) lead to death? This needs an explanation
-p14 study limitations: some should be added to the methods section, not in the
discussion section. some cases were excluded.
-table 2, 3 and 4 have a great overlap, they should be shorter.
-the five factors analyzed should not be mentioned as prognostic factors in the
text of the different tables, this is not the correct term and even misleading.Op 1
dec. 2013, om 22:12 heeft Spanier, Marcel het volgende geschreven:
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Mortality following acute pancreatitis: social deprivation, hospital size and
time of admission: record linkage study
Version:2Date:2 December 2013
Reviewer: Marcel M Spanier
Reviewer's report:
Acute pancreatitis (AP) related mortality is an important issue. Normally the 30
days mortality rate is reported, the authors focus on the 60 days mortality rate.
Besides the general mortality, the authors also analyze the influence of five
different factors for two main causes of AP (gallstones and alcohol).
The strength of this study is that the data are linked with different databases.
However the aetiology is known of by 35% of the total population.
Major concern, it is not known/ discussed if the authors checked and corrected
for unique cases (normally only 80% cases are really unique).
Another major concern is the fact that first attack AP's and recurrent AP's are not
seperatly analyzed (see p 7 definition of new cases).
Minor concerns:
The five factors analyzed are very mixed from social deprivation to influence of
EWTDs. To create a more easily to read manuscript the authors can probably
skip some two of them.
-the five factors analyzed should be discussed through the manuscript in the
same order.
-p 10 the percentage of total aetiology is not 100% but only 70.5%
p10 how can galstones ( in 13%) lead to death? This needs an explanation
-p14 study limitations: some should be added to the methods section, not in the
discussion section. some cases were excluded.
-table 2, 3 and 4 have a great overlap, they should be shorter.
-the five factors analyzed should not be mentioned as prognostic factors in the
text of the different tables, this is not the correct term and even misleading.Op 1
dec. 2013, om 22:12 heeft Spanier, Marcel het volgende geschreven:
assistant