Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative cost-efficiency of EVOTECH ECR versus Medivator DSD-201
in a real-world Canadian hospital endoscopy setting.
Version: 2Date:14 March 2011
Reviewer: Cesrae Hassan
Reviewer's report:
The Auhtors presented a microsimulation calculation of the cost of two different
approaches for endoscope reprocessing, that is: manual cleaning+automated
disinfection vs. cleaning automated+automated disinfection. The Authors showed
the important saving of human resources when avoiding the manual cleaning.
They also appropriately discussed the limitations of their interesting study in the
discussion.
My only major criticism is the study approach that is not in agreement with the
clinical expectations of this Journal readers. Indeed,it seems that the Authors
simply wanted to show the superiority of one machine over the other, that is an
industrial competition that is of no sense for clinician readers. therefore, the
Authors need to re-write the manuscript clarifying that the primary end-point was
to compare the cost of two different approaches of reprocessing, citing only
marginally and no more than 2-3 times in all the manuscript which machines
were used to run this comparison. Probably, the analysis could be limited to the
saving in technician time without providing further details on the cost of
consumables. the latter is again more an industrial competition rather than a
clinical message.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative cost-efficiency of EVOTECH ECR versus Medivator DSD-201
in a real-world Canadian hospital endoscopy setting.
Version: 2Date:14 March 2011
Reviewer: Cesrae Hassan
Reviewer's report:
The Auhtors presented a microsimulation calculation of the cost of two different
approaches for endoscope reprocessing, that is: manual cleaning+automated
disinfection vs. cleaning automated+automated disinfection. The Authors showed
the important saving of human resources when avoiding the manual cleaning.
They also appropriately discussed the limitations of their interesting study in the
discussion.
My only major criticism is the study approach that is not in agreement with the
clinical expectations of this Journal readers. Indeed,it seems that the Authors
simply wanted to show the superiority of one machine over the other, that is an
industrial competition that is of no sense for clinician readers. therefore, the
Authors need to re-write the manuscript clarifying that the primary end-point was
to compare the cost of two different approaches of reprocessing, citing only
marginally and no more than 2-3 times in all the manuscript which machines
were used to run this comparison. Probably, the analysis could be limited to the
saving in technician time without providing further details on the cost of
consumables. the latter is again more an industrial competition rather than a
clinical message.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparative cost-efficiency of EVOTECH ECR versus Medivator DSD-201
in a real-world Canadian hospital endoscopy setting.
Version: 2Date:14 March 2011
Reviewer: Cesrae Hassan
Reviewer's report:
The Auhtors presented a microsimulation calculation of the cost of two different
approaches for endoscope reprocessing, that is: manual cleaning+automated
disinfection vs. cleaning automated+automated disinfection. The Authors showed
the important saving of human resources when avoiding the manual cleaning.
They also appropriately discussed the limitations of their interesting study in the
discussion.
My only major criticism is the study approach that is not in agreement with the
clinical expectations of this Journal readers. Indeed,it seems that the Authors
simply wanted to show the superiority of one machine over the other, that is an
industrial competition that is of no sense for clinician readers. therefore, the
Authors need to re-write the manuscript clarifying that the primary end-point was
to compare the cost of two different approaches of reprocessing, citing only
marginally and no more than 2-3 times in all the manuscript which machines
were used to run this comparison. Probably, the analysis could be limited to the
saving in technician time without providing further details on the cost of
consumables. the latter is again more an industrial competition rather than a
clinical message.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant