relative_rank
int64 0
0
| win_prob
float64 0
0
| title
stringlengths 32
37
| abstract
stringclasses 1
value | full_text
stringlengths 107
36.7k
| review
stringlengths 107
36.7k
| source
stringclasses 1
value | review_src
stringlengths 37
42
| criteria_count
dict | dimension_scores
dict | overall_score
float64 0
6
| thinking_trace
stringclasses 1
value | prompt
stringclasses 1
value | prompt_length
int64 0
0
| conversations
listlengths 2
2
| year
int64 2k
2.03k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-9
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture - a report of 2 cases. Title:
2 1 April 2006 Version: Date:
Gianlorenzo Dionigi Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Summary
Atraumatic rupture of the spleen is an uncommon condition that may be associated with various
etiologies. Splenic peliosis is a rare condition which has previously been described in association
with splenic rupture. The Authors describe unique cases of atraumatic splenic rupture in which
splenic peliosis was diagnosed following splenectomy.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I enjoyed reviewing the paper "Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture: a report of 2 cases" by Lashbrook, et al.
I have the following questions and suggestions for the authors:
• Please specify the type of laparotomy in Case Presentation #1 and 2 • Case presentation #1 can be shortered • The Authors should provide Reference of the sentence in the Conclusion Section “… detection of
splenic peliolsis warrants elective splenectomy or careful observation with regular follow up and
imaging to detect disease progression” • Laparoscopic splenectomy offers superior visualization and access to the spleen and avoids the major laparotomy incision necessary in open splenectomy. The Authors must comment in the
Conclusion Section the advent of laparoscopic elective splenectomy for young patients with splenic
peliosis (Mavor E. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:1285-97)
I think that the paper describes an interesting case report with unique pathological figures. I think
that the Editors should not minimize the potential interest such a report will generate. Therefore, with
the questions above answered by the Authors, I would support publication for this investigation. I
would be interested in reviewing the paper again if you address these points raised by the reviewers;
please understand I make no assurance as to final Editorial decision.
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture - a report of 2 cases. Title:
2 1 April 2006 Version: Date:
Gianlorenzo Dionigi Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Summary
Atraumatic rupture of the spleen is an uncommon condition that may be associated with various
etiologies. Splenic peliosis is a rare condition which has previously been described in association
with splenic rupture. The Authors describe unique cases of atraumatic splenic rupture in which
splenic peliosis was diagnosed following splenectomy.
Major Compulsory Revisions
I enjoyed reviewing the paper "Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture: a report of 2 cases" by Lashbrook, et al.
I have the following questions and suggestions for the authors:
• Please specify the type of laparotomy in Case Presentation #1 and 2 • Case presentation #1 can be shortered • The Authors should provide Reference of the sentence in the Conclusion Section “… detection of
splenic peliolsis warrants elective splenectomy or careful observation with regular follow up and
imaging to detect disease progression” • Laparoscopic splenectomy offers superior visualization and access to the spleen and avoids the major laparotomy incision necessary in open splenectomy. The Authors must comment in the
Conclusion Section the advent of laparoscopic elective splenectomy for young patients with splenic
peliosis (Mavor E. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:1285-97)
I think that the paper describes an interesting case report with unique pathological figures. I think
that the Editors should not minimize the potential interest such a report will generate. Therefore, with
the questions above answered by the Authors, I would support publication for this investigation. I
would be interested in reviewing the paper again if you address these points raised by the reviewers;
please understand I make no assurance as to final Editorial decision.
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_72_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 6,
"total": 13
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.07692307692307693,
"example": 0.07692307692307693,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.15384615384615385,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.23076923076923078,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.15384615384615385,
"results_and_discussion": 0.15384615384615385,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.46153846153846156
}
| 1.307692
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture - a report of 2 cases. Title: \n 2 1 April 2006 Version: Date: \n Gianlorenzo Dionigi Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nSummary \nAtraumatic rupture of the spleen is an uncommon condition that may be associated with various \netiologies. Splenic peliosis is a rare condition which has previously been described in association \nwith splenic rupture. The Authors describe unique cases of atraumatic splenic rupture in which \nsplenic peliosis was diagnosed following splenectomy. \nMajor Compulsory Revisions \nI enjoyed reviewing the paper \"Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture: a report of 2 cases\" by Lashbrook, et al. \nI have the following questions and suggestions for the authors: \n• Please specify the type of laparotomy in Case Presentation #1 and 2 • Case presentation #1 can be shortered • The Authors should provide Reference of the sentence in the Conclusion Section “… detection of \nsplenic peliolsis warrants elective splenectomy or careful observation with regular follow up and \nimaging to detect disease progression” • Laparoscopic splenectomy offers superior visualization and access to the spleen and avoids the major laparotomy incision necessary in open splenectomy. The Authors must comment in the \nConclusion Section the advent of laparoscopic elective splenectomy for young patients with splenic \npeliosis (Mavor E. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80:1285-97) \nI think that the paper describes an interesting case report with unique pathological figures. I think \nthat the Editors should not minimize the potential interest such a report will generate. Therefore, with \nthe questions above answered by the Authors, I would support publication for this investigation. I \nwould be interested in reviewing the paper again if you address these points raised by the reviewers; \nplease understand I make no assurance as to final Editorial decision. \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-9
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture - a report of 2 cases. Title:
5 19 June 2006 Version: Date:
Gianlorenzo Dionigi Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reviewing the paper "Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture: a report of 2 cases" by
Lashbrook, et al. The Authors describe unique cases of atraumatic splenic rupture in which splenic peliosis was diagnosed following splenectomy. I think that the paper describes an interesting case report with unique pathological
figures.
All the questions above were answered by the Authors.
I think that the Editors should not minimize the potential interest such a report will generate.
Therefore I would support publication for this investigation.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture - a report of 2 cases. Title:
5 19 June 2006 Version: Date:
Gianlorenzo Dionigi Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
I enjoyed reviewing the paper "Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture: a report of 2 cases" by
Lashbrook, et al. The Authors describe unique cases of atraumatic splenic rupture in which splenic peliosis was diagnosed following splenectomy. I think that the paper describes an interesting case report with unique pathological
figures.
All the questions above were answered by the Authors.
I think that the Editors should not minimize the potential interest such a report will generate.
Therefore I would support publication for this investigation.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_72_ReviewerReport_V5_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 9
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2222222222222222,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.1111111111111111,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture - a report of 2 cases. Title: \n 5 19 June 2006 Version: Date: \n Gianlorenzo Dionigi Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nI enjoyed reviewing the paper \"Splenic peliosis with spontaneous splenic rupture: a report of 2 cases\" by \nLashbrook, et al. The Authors describe unique cases of atraumatic splenic rupture in which splenic peliosis was diagnosed following splenectomy. I think that the paper describes an interesting case report with unique pathological \nfigures. \nAll the questions above were answered by the Authors. \nI think that the Editors should not minimize the potential interest such a report will generate. \nTherefore I would support publication for this investigation. \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Title:
Peptic Ulcer
1 6 April 2006 Version: Date:
mario testini Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
- None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct:
- Data in figure 1E do not correspond to those reported in the manuscript (page 8); moreover in the
pie chart is shown a slice (marked with an asterisk) whose meaning is not explained.
- Reference n. 19: the correct surname of the fourth author is LISSIDINI G .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Title:
Peptic Ulcer
1 6 April 2006 Version: Date:
mario testini Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
- None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct:
- Data in figure 1E do not correspond to those reported in the manuscript (page 8); moreover in the
pie chart is shown a slice (marked with an asterisk) whose meaning is not explained.
- Reference n. 19: the correct surname of the fourth author is LISSIDINI G .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_71_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.25,
"example": 0.75,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.25,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.75,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 2.25
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Title: \nPeptic Ulcer \n 1 6 April 2006 Version: Date: \n mario testini Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n- None \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct: \n- Data in figure 1E do not correspond to those reported in the manuscript (page 8); moreover in the \npie chart is shown a slice (marked with an asterisk) whose meaning is not explained. \n- Reference n. 19: the correct surname of the fourth author is LISSIDINI G . \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Title:
Peptic Ulcer
1 7 April 2006 Version: Date:
Hung Lau Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
Regarding the analysis, the censored event is the development of a complication. However, this single censored event, in fact, comprised a heterogeneous groups of complications. This
jeopardized the validity and applicability of the results. Besides, it is difficult to determine the
commencement time of the censored event. Frequently, complication started soon after operation.
Instead of focusing on the rate of developing complication or risk of developing no. of complications,
most readers are more concerned about complications requiring surgical intervention and ultimate
outcomes of the patients.
Authors should point the clinical relevance or importance of evaluating the rate of developing
complications and the no. of complications.
Types & no. of surgical intervention, as well as causes of death should be given .
Did the rate of developing complication and higher no. of complications influence the mortality?
Please elaborate the clinical impact of the author's findings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) What was the blood group selected to be a predictor?
Please define abdominal distension. Any objective criteria? 39% of patients had abd. distension
appeared unusual.
Please delete 2nd paragraph on p,9. It appeared irrelevant to the paper.
What is 'tension suture'?
In introduction of abstract, objective was not clearly stated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Suggest to tabulate features on admission and medical conditions - 1st paragraph of Results.
Were the 4 subjects without repair really suffering from PPU?
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
Yes Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Title:
Peptic Ulcer
1 7 April 2006 Version: Date:
Hung Lau Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
Regarding the analysis, the censored event is the development of a complication. However, this single censored event, in fact, comprised a heterogeneous groups of complications. This
jeopardized the validity and applicability of the results. Besides, it is difficult to determine the
commencement time of the censored event. Frequently, complication started soon after operation.
Instead of focusing on the rate of developing complication or risk of developing no. of complications,
most readers are more concerned about complications requiring surgical intervention and ultimate
outcomes of the patients.
Authors should point the clinical relevance or importance of evaluating the rate of developing
complications and the no. of complications.
Types & no. of surgical intervention, as well as causes of death should be given .
Did the rate of developing complication and higher no. of complications influence the mortality?
Please elaborate the clinical impact of the author's findings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) What was the blood group selected to be a predictor?
Please define abdominal distension. Any objective criteria? 39% of patients had abd. distension
appeared unusual.
Please delete 2nd paragraph on p,9. It appeared irrelevant to the paper.
What is 'tension suture'?
In introduction of abstract, objective was not clearly stated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Suggest to tabulate features on admission and medical conditions - 1st paragraph of Results.
Were the 4 subjects without repair really suffering from PPU?
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
Yes Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_71_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 4,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 5,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 7,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 27
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.14814814814814814,
"example": 0.1111111111111111,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.07407407407407407,
"materials_and_methods": 0.18518518518518517,
"praise": 0.037037037037037035,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25925925925925924,
"results_and_discussion": 0.14814814814814814,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.25925925925925924
}
| 1.222222
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Title: \nPeptic Ulcer \n 1 7 April 2006 Version: Date: \n Hung Lau Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nRegarding the analysis, the censored event is the development of a complication. However, this single censored event, in fact, comprised a heterogeneous groups of complications. This \njeopardized the validity and applicability of the results. Besides, it is difficult to determine the \ncommencement time of the censored event. Frequently, complication started soon after operation. \nInstead of focusing on the rate of developing complication or risk of developing no. of complications, \nmost readers are more concerned about complications requiring surgical intervention and ultimate \noutcomes of the patients. \nAuthors should point the clinical relevance or importance of evaluating the rate of developing \ncomplications and the no. of complications. \nTypes & no. of surgical intervention, as well as causes of death should be given . \nDid the rate of developing complication and higher no. of complications influence the mortality? \nPlease elaborate the clinical impact of the author's findings. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) What was the blood group selected to be a predictor? \nPlease define abdominal distension. Any objective criteria? 39% of patients had abd. distension \nappeared unusual. \nPlease delete 2nd paragraph on p,9. It appeared irrelevant to the paper. \nWhat is 'tension suture'? \nIn introduction of abstract, objective was not clearly stated. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nSuggest to tabulate features on admission and medical conditions - 1st paragraph of Results. \nWere the 4 subjects without repair really suffering from PPU? \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n Yes Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title:
Ulcer
1 3 May 2006 Version: Date:
Marek Brabec Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Motivation for the presented study is clearly stated and has substantial practical consequences. As authors state in the Background, predictors for morbidity and for mortality might be potentially different and hence those traditional strategies oriented to mortality stratification might not be the best when mortality was
(fortunately) lowered and morbidity comes into focus.
Methodologically, the search for a set of good predictors is not entirely easy, nor completely straightforward. The present paper tries to use very standard statistical methodology. Even though various improvements over this â €œtextbook approachâ € are known, the standard contribution might be useful when presented
in appropriate framework, discussed perhaps with a bit of skepticism and mainly in a rigorous way.
Especially lack of rigor is what is missing in the paper. Even terminology can be improved a lot to prevent misunderstanding and even misleading conclusions. Typical example of terminological carelessness is repeated use of the notion of â €œmultivariate
modelsâ € through the text. The techniques that the authors use are all UNIVARIATE. Note that in
Statistics (both theory and applications), regression with several explanatory variables is a univariate
method (and it is called multiple regression, not multivariate). There are multivariate generalizations of
regression, logistic regression, etc. but they are more complicated (work with several dependent variables at
once) and were not used by the authors of this paper at all. True multivariate techniques might be useful in
present context (e.g. when considering simultaneous behavior of several complication events), instead of lumping them into more or less artificial composite index dubbed in the paper as â €œpostoperative
complicationâ € (note that complications having various causes and consequences are lumped together
there in the â €œapples and orangesâ € style, so that usefulness of such a measure is a bit questionable
from practical point of view). In any case, statistical models used for the analyses should be clearly stated
within the text (as equations showing clearly what is predicted from what). Estimated coefficients should be
presented not only in sometimes hard to read graphs, but also in tabular form, point estimates should be
accompanied by some quantity expressing uncertainty (e.g. standard errors, confidence intervals, etc.).
Another question of practical interest is generalizability of the results. For instance, the authors stated that
the study was conducted in two particular hospitals. Can the spectrum of complications (and their relative
frequencies) be expected similar at different places? And are the predictors and their importance similar at
different places? These are obviously questions that are hard to answer without further studies, but their
relevance should be at least acknowledged in the discussion. Moreover, the fact that the data are available from two locations can be used to perform statistical tests comparing: i) spectrum of complications, ii) predictors between the locations. Obviously, apparent homogeneity between them is only necessary, but
not sufficient condition for further generaliability, but it should be tried as the first attempt. Note that there
are many subtleties that can be elegantly studied by means of statistical analysis, e.g. whether the predition
models are about the same for different locations, whether coefficients of the same explanatory variables
are similar at different locations, etc.
Discrepancy between analyses with single explanatory variable and with several explanatory variables
taken simultaneously (e.g. that mentioned on page 12) is taken quite lightly, it is not investigated, nor discussed (note that it is by no means automatic that the simultaneous analysis is free of problems â €“
remember troubles with collinearity and many others).
The way of writing results is too compact sometimes. â €œ(odds ratio, p)â € notation is terrible. It would not
take too much space to state every time that OR was such and such and p was such and such, while such a
provision would enhance readability substantially. â €œp 0.015â € should be replaced by â €œp=0.015â €,
etc. It is really hard to swallow inherently contradictory statements like â €œindependently predictedâ € and
“independent predictorâ € that appear within the text. Probably, just the usual â €œpredicted by the
explanatory variables consideredâ € is meant but the meaning is masked so that it is hard to decipher.
Some variables entering the analyses are not defined previously. For instance, take â €œhistory suggeestive
of shockâ €. What does it mean precisely? How long history, how was the datum about it obtained â €“
questionaire/questioning by a particular investigator/taken from routine documentation, etc.?
Graph legend should be much more extensive. For instance, it is not explained what is the meaning of the
numbers in Figure 2F (probably p-values, but one has to guess).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title:
Ulcer
1 3 May 2006 Version: Date:
Marek Brabec Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Motivation for the presented study is clearly stated and has substantial practical consequences. As authors state in the Background, predictors for morbidity and for mortality might be potentially different and hence those traditional strategies oriented to mortality stratification might not be the best when mortality was
(fortunately) lowered and morbidity comes into focus.
Methodologically, the search for a set of good predictors is not entirely easy, nor completely straightforward. The present paper tries to use very standard statistical methodology. Even though various improvements over this â €œtextbook approachâ € are known, the standard contribution might be useful when presented
in appropriate framework, discussed perhaps with a bit of skepticism and mainly in a rigorous way.
Especially lack of rigor is what is missing in the paper. Even terminology can be improved a lot to prevent misunderstanding and even misleading conclusions. Typical example of terminological carelessness is repeated use of the notion of â €œmultivariate
modelsâ € through the text. The techniques that the authors use are all UNIVARIATE. Note that in
Statistics (both theory and applications), regression with several explanatory variables is a univariate
method (and it is called multiple regression, not multivariate). There are multivariate generalizations of
regression, logistic regression, etc. but they are more complicated (work with several dependent variables at
once) and were not used by the authors of this paper at all. True multivariate techniques might be useful in
present context (e.g. when considering simultaneous behavior of several complication events), instead of lumping them into more or less artificial composite index dubbed in the paper as â €œpostoperative
complicationâ € (note that complications having various causes and consequences are lumped together
there in the â €œapples and orangesâ € style, so that usefulness of such a measure is a bit questionable
from practical point of view). In any case, statistical models used for the analyses should be clearly stated
within the text (as equations showing clearly what is predicted from what). Estimated coefficients should be
presented not only in sometimes hard to read graphs, but also in tabular form, point estimates should be
accompanied by some quantity expressing uncertainty (e.g. standard errors, confidence intervals, etc.).
Another question of practical interest is generalizability of the results. For instance, the authors stated that
the study was conducted in two particular hospitals. Can the spectrum of complications (and their relative
frequencies) be expected similar at different places? And are the predictors and their importance similar at
different places? These are obviously questions that are hard to answer without further studies, but their
relevance should be at least acknowledged in the discussion. Moreover, the fact that the data are available from two locations can be used to perform statistical tests comparing: i) spectrum of complications, ii) predictors between the locations. Obviously, apparent homogeneity between them is only necessary, but
not sufficient condition for further generaliability, but it should be tried as the first attempt. Note that there
are many subtleties that can be elegantly studied by means of statistical analysis, e.g. whether the predition
models are about the same for different locations, whether coefficients of the same explanatory variables
are similar at different locations, etc.
Discrepancy between analyses with single explanatory variable and with several explanatory variables
taken simultaneously (e.g. that mentioned on page 12) is taken quite lightly, it is not investigated, nor discussed (note that it is by no means automatic that the simultaneous analysis is free of problems â €“
remember troubles with collinearity and many others).
The way of writing results is too compact sometimes. â €œ(odds ratio, p)â € notation is terrible. It would not
take too much space to state every time that OR was such and such and p was such and such, while such a
provision would enhance readability substantially. â €œp 0.015â € should be replaced by â €œp=0.015â €,
etc. It is really hard to swallow inherently contradictory statements like â €œindependently predictedâ € and
“independent predictorâ € that appear within the text. Probably, just the usual â €œpredicted by the
explanatory variables consideredâ € is meant but the meaning is masked so that it is hard to decipher.
Some variables entering the analyses are not defined previously. For instance, take â €œhistory suggeestive
of shockâ €. What does it mean precisely? How long history, how was the datum about it obtained â €“
questionaire/questioning by a particular investigator/taken from routine documentation, etc.?
Graph legend should be much more extensive. For instance, it is not explained what is the meaning of the
numbers in Figure 2F (probably p-values, but one has to guess).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_71_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 13,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 4,
"materials_and_methods": 24,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 13,
"results_and_discussion": 12,
"suggestion_and_solution": 13,
"total": 41
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.3170731707317073,
"example": 0.07317073170731707,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.0975609756097561,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5853658536585366,
"praise": 0.024390243902439025,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3170731707317073,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2926829268292683,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3170731707317073
}
| 2.02439
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title: \nUlcer \n 1 3 May 2006 Version: Date: \n Marek Brabec Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nMotivation for the presented study is clearly stated and has substantial practical consequences. As authors state in the Background, predictors for morbidity and for mortality might be potentially different and hence those traditional strategies oriented to mortality stratification might not be the best when mortality was \n(fortunately) lowered and morbidity comes into focus. \nMethodologically, the search for a set of good predictors is not entirely easy, nor completely straightforward. The present paper tries to use very standard statistical methodology. Even though various improvements over this â €œtextbook approachâ €\u0001 are known, the standard contribution might be useful when presented \nin appropriate framework, discussed perhaps with a bit of skepticism and mainly in a rigorous way. \nEspecially lack of rigor is what is missing in the paper. Even terminology can be improved a lot to prevent misunderstanding and even misleading conclusions. Typical example of terminological carelessness is repeated use of the notion of â €œmultivariate \nmodelsâ €\u0001 through the text. The techniques that the authors use are all UNIVARIATE. Note that in \nStatistics (both theory and applications), regression with several explanatory variables is a univariate \nmethod (and it is called multiple regression, not multivariate). There are multivariate generalizations of \nregression, logistic regression, etc. but they are more complicated (work with several dependent variables at \nonce) and were not used by the authors of this paper at all. True multivariate techniques might be useful in \npresent context (e.g. when considering simultaneous behavior of several complication events), instead of lumping them into more or less artificial composite index dubbed in the paper as â €œpostoperative \ncomplicationâ €\u0001 (note that complications having various causes and consequences are lumped together \nthere in the â €œapples and orangesâ €\u0001 style, so that usefulness of such a measure is a bit questionable \nfrom practical point of view). In any case, statistical models used for the analyses should be clearly stated \nwithin the text (as equations showing clearly what is predicted from what). Estimated coefficients should be \npresented not only in sometimes hard to read graphs, but also in tabular form, point estimates should be \naccompanied by some quantity expressing uncertainty (e.g. standard errors, confidence intervals, etc.). \nAnother question of practical interest is generalizability of the results. For instance, the authors stated that \nthe study was conducted in two particular hospitals. Can the spectrum of complications (and their relative \nfrequencies) be expected similar at different places? And are the predictors and their importance similar at \ndifferent places? These are obviously questions that are hard to answer without further studies, but their \nrelevance should be at least acknowledged in the discussion. Moreover, the fact that the data are available from two locations can be used to perform statistical tests comparing: i) spectrum of complications, ii) predictors between the locations. Obviously, apparent homogeneity between them is only necessary, but \nnot sufficient condition for further generaliability, but it should be tried as the first attempt. Note that there \nare many subtleties that can be elegantly studied by means of statistical analysis, e.g. whether the predition \nmodels are about the same for different locations, whether coefficients of the same explanatory variables \nare similar at different locations, etc. \nDiscrepancy between analyses with single explanatory variable and with several explanatory variables \ntaken simultaneously (e.g. that mentioned on page 12) is taken quite lightly, it is not investigated, nor discussed (note that it is by no means automatic that the simultaneous analysis is free of problems â €“ \nremember troubles with collinearity and many others). \nThe way of writing results is too compact sometimes. â €œ(odds ratio, p)â €\u0001 notation is terrible. It would not \ntake too much space to state every time that OR was such and such and p was such and such, while such a \nprovision would enhance readability substantially. â €œp 0.015â €\u0001 should be replaced by â €œp=0.015â €\u0001,\netc. It is really hard to swallow inherently contradictory statements like â €œindependently predictedâ €\u0001 and \n“independent predictorâ €\u0001 that appear within the text. Probably, just the usual â €œpredicted by the \nexplanatory variables consideredâ €\u0001 is meant but the meaning is masked so that it is hard to decipher. \nSome variables entering the analyses are not defined previously. For instance, take â €œhistory suggeestive \nof shockâ €\u0001. What does it mean precisely? How long history, how was the datum about it obtained â €“ \nquestionaire/questioning by a particular investigator/taken from routine documentation, etc.? \nGraph legend should be much more extensive. For instance, it is not explained what is the meaning of the \nnumbers in Figure 2F (probably p-values, but one has to guess). \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title:
Ulcer
2 1 June 2006 Version: Date:
Hung Lau Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Satisfactory revision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title:
Ulcer
2 1 June 2006 Version: Date:
Hung Lau Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Satisfactory revision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_71_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title: \nUlcer \n 2 1 June 2006 Version: Date: \n Hung Lau Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nSatisfactory revision. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title:
Ulcer
2 8 June 2006 Version: Date:
Marek Brabec Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
In their covering letter, the authors provided careful answers to questions raised in previous review. They
corrected most of the problematic spots and improved quality of the text substantially. The paper is now suitable for publication.
|
Reviewer's report
A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title:
Ulcer
2 8 June 2006 Version: Date:
Marek Brabec Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
In their covering letter, the authors provided careful answers to questions raised in previous review. They
corrected most of the problematic spots and improved quality of the text substantially. The paper is now suitable for publication.
|
BMC
|
12893_2006_71_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0.6666666666666666,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A Prospective Cohort Study of Postoperative Complications in the Management of Perforated Peptic Title: \nUlcer \n 2 8 June 2006 Version: Date: \n Marek Brabec Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nIn their covering letter, the authors provided careful answers to questions raised in previous review. They \ncorrected most of the problematic spots and improved quality of the text substantially. The paper is now suitable for publication. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
2 16 November 2005 Version: Date:
Takashi Kanematsu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
1. They should evaluate the factor five activity after treatment of FFP during before and
intraoperative course, because the circulating half-life of factor five is approximately 12h.
2. For major surgery, the factor five activity to be raised to 25% by loading with 10-15 ml/kg of FFP
(Mod. Treat. 1968; 5: 61-83). However, they described the factor five level was less than 20% of
normal. Recent case report of the congenital factor five deficiency who underwent cornary artey
bypass have showed the factor five activity was 3% (Surg. Today 2005; 35: 142-144).
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
2 16 November 2005 Version: Date:
Takashi Kanematsu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
1. They should evaluate the factor five activity after treatment of FFP during before and
intraoperative course, because the circulating half-life of factor five is approximately 12h.
2. For major surgery, the factor five activity to be raised to 25% by loading with 10-15 ml/kg of FFP
(Mod. Treat. 1968; 5: 61-83). However, they described the factor five level was less than 20% of
normal. Recent case report of the congenital factor five deficiency who underwent cornary artey
bypass have showed the factor five activity was 3% (Surg. Today 2005; 35: 142-144).
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_70_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 12
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.08333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0.25,
"praise": 0.08333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.08333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.08333333333333333
}
| 0.583333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title: \nExtra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction. \n 2 16 November 2005 Version: Date: \n Takashi Kanematsu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \n1. They should evaluate the factor five activity after treatment of FFP during before and \nintraoperative course, because the circulating half-life of factor five is approximately 12h. \n2. For major surgery, the factor five activity to be raised to 25% by loading with 10-15 ml/kg of FFP \n(Mod. Treat. 1968; 5: 61-83). However, they described the factor five level was less than 20% of \nnormal. Recent case report of the congenital factor five deficiency who underwent cornary artey \nbypass have showed the factor five activity was 3% (Surg. Today 2005; 35: 142-144). \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
2 2 December 2005 Version: Date:
Jeffrey Weitz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Chava and colleagues describe a case of a 16 year old boy with factor V deficiency who presented
with portal hypertension secondary to portal vein obstruction. Under coverage with fresh frozen
plasma, the patient underwent successful lieno-renal shunting and splenectomy. The authors argue
convincingly that this elective surgical procedure has the potential to reduce the risk of subsequent
life-threatening variceal bleeding.
Although this is an interesting report, there are issues that need to be addressed. These can be
divided as follows:
(A) Major compulsory revisions:
1. Were family studies done to determine the inheritance of the factor V deficiency? If so, this should
be stated. At the very least, the levels of factor V activity and antigen in the proband should be
provided.
2. Was the portal vein occlusion secondary to thrombosis? If so, were studies done to exclude a
concomitant thrombophilic defect? This is important because thrombosis has been described in
factor V deficient patients with concomitant factor V Leiden or factor V HR2.
3. What were the factor V levels before and serially after surgery? A flow chart showing these levels
on a day-by-day basis along with volumes of transfused plasma would be more helpful than the
current Table 1.
4. To enhance the utility of this report, the authors should briefly comment on (a) the genetic bases
for factor V deficiency, and (b) the potential limitations of solvent/detergent plasma as a substitute
for fresh frozen plasma in patients with factor V deficiency. For references, see Blood 2003;102:3210-3216 and Blood Coagul. Fibrinolysis 2003;14:283-287.
(B) Minor essential revisions:
1. The abstract and introduction are much the same. To avoid repetition, the abstract could be
shortened.
2. The discussion contains a paragraph that is over 3 pages long! To improve the flow of
information, several shorter paragraphs would be preferable.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
2 2 December 2005 Version: Date:
Jeffrey Weitz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Chava and colleagues describe a case of a 16 year old boy with factor V deficiency who presented
with portal hypertension secondary to portal vein obstruction. Under coverage with fresh frozen
plasma, the patient underwent successful lieno-renal shunting and splenectomy. The authors argue
convincingly that this elective surgical procedure has the potential to reduce the risk of subsequent
life-threatening variceal bleeding.
Although this is an interesting report, there are issues that need to be addressed. These can be
divided as follows:
(A) Major compulsory revisions:
1. Were family studies done to determine the inheritance of the factor V deficiency? If so, this should
be stated. At the very least, the levels of factor V activity and antigen in the proband should be
provided.
2. Was the portal vein occlusion secondary to thrombosis? If so, were studies done to exclude a
concomitant thrombophilic defect? This is important because thrombosis has been described in
factor V deficient patients with concomitant factor V Leiden or factor V HR2.
3. What were the factor V levels before and serially after surgery? A flow chart showing these levels
on a day-by-day basis along with volumes of transfused plasma would be more helpful than the
current Table 1.
4. To enhance the utility of this report, the authors should briefly comment on (a) the genetic bases
for factor V deficiency, and (b) the potential limitations of solvent/detergent plasma as a substitute
for fresh frozen plasma in patients with factor V deficiency. For references, see Blood 2003;102:3210-3216 and Blood Coagul. Fibrinolysis 2003;14:283-287.
(B) Minor essential revisions:
1. The abstract and introduction are much the same. To avoid repetition, the abstract could be
shortened.
2. The discussion contains a paragraph that is over 3 pages long! To improve the flow of
information, several shorter paragraphs would be preferable.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_70_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 8,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 8,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 9,
"total": 28
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.03571428571428571,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2857142857142857,
"praise": 0.03571428571428571,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2857142857142857,
"results_and_discussion": 0.07142857142857142,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.32142857142857145
}
| 1.035714
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title: \nExtra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction. \n 2 2 December 2005 Version: Date: \n Jeffrey Weitz Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nChava and colleagues describe a case of a 16 year old boy with factor V deficiency who presented \nwith portal hypertension secondary to portal vein obstruction. Under coverage with fresh frozen \nplasma, the patient underwent successful lieno-renal shunting and splenectomy. The authors argue \nconvincingly that this elective surgical procedure has the potential to reduce the risk of subsequent \nlife-threatening variceal bleeding. \nAlthough this is an interesting report, there are issues that need to be addressed. These can be \ndivided as follows: \n(A) Major compulsory revisions: \n1. Were family studies done to determine the inheritance of the factor V deficiency? If so, this should \nbe stated. At the very least, the levels of factor V activity and antigen in the proband should be \nprovided. \n2. Was the portal vein occlusion secondary to thrombosis? If so, were studies done to exclude a \nconcomitant thrombophilic defect? This is important because thrombosis has been described in \nfactor V deficient patients with concomitant factor V Leiden or factor V HR2. \n3. What were the factor V levels before and serially after surgery? A flow chart showing these levels \non a day-by-day basis along with volumes of transfused plasma would be more helpful than the \ncurrent Table 1. \n4. To enhance the utility of this report, the authors should briefly comment on (a) the genetic bases \nfor factor V deficiency, and (b) the potential limitations of solvent/detergent plasma as a substitute \nfor fresh frozen plasma in patients with factor V deficiency. For references, see Blood 2003;102:3210-3216 and Blood Coagul. Fibrinolysis 2003;14:283-287. \n(B) Minor essential revisions: \n1. The abstract and introduction are much the same. To avoid repetition, the abstract could be \nshortened. \n2. The discussion contains a paragraph that is over 3 pages long! To improve the flow of \ninformation, several shorter paragraphs would be preferable. \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
2 25 December 2005 Version: Date:
martine alhenc-gelas Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports of clinical management for surgery in a patient with FV deficiency
The main criticism is that this deficiency is not well characterized ; to know that FV is less than 20%
is not sufficient because the therapeutic attitude would be different in patients with severe FV
deficiency (FV<1%) and in patients with moderate (2-5%) or mild (5-10%) deficiency. So , exact FV
level must be given ; moreover, in the hypothesis of an inherited FV deficiency, FV levels in the
parents should be given and discussed. Iterative plasma injections are mainly justified in patients
with severe Fv deficiency who have a high hemorraghic risk in surgical situations. So the paper
should be accepted for publication if FV level in the patient justifiy the therapeutic attitude only .
Moreover, evolution of FV levels throughout the period of substitution should be presented.
Minor criticism :
Thromboelastograms are not of any help here. Table 1 could be suppressed and results of
hemostasis tests presented in the text
The paper is very long for a case report in which no truly novel information is presented
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
2 25 December 2005 Version: Date:
martine alhenc-gelas Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This paper reports of clinical management for surgery in a patient with FV deficiency
The main criticism is that this deficiency is not well characterized ; to know that FV is less than 20%
is not sufficient because the therapeutic attitude would be different in patients with severe FV
deficiency (FV<1%) and in patients with moderate (2-5%) or mild (5-10%) deficiency. So , exact FV
level must be given ; moreover, in the hypothesis of an inherited FV deficiency, FV levels in the
parents should be given and discussed. Iterative plasma injections are mainly justified in patients
with severe Fv deficiency who have a high hemorraghic risk in surgical situations. So the paper
should be accepted for publication if FV level in the patient justifiy the therapeutic attitude only .
Moreover, evolution of FV levels throughout the period of substitution should be presented.
Minor criticism :
Thromboelastograms are not of any help here. Table 1 could be suppressed and results of
hemostasis tests presented in the text
The paper is very long for a case report in which no truly novel information is presented
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_70_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 5,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 4,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 9
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2222222222222222,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5555555555555556,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4444444444444444,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2222222222222222,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 1.777778
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title: \nExtra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction. \n 2 25 December 2005 Version: Date: \n martine alhenc-gelas Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThis paper reports of clinical management for surgery in a patient with FV deficiency \nThe main criticism is that this deficiency is not well characterized ; to know that FV is less than 20% \nis not sufficient because the therapeutic attitude would be different in patients with severe FV \ndeficiency (FV<1%) and in patients with moderate (2-5%) or mild (5-10%) deficiency. So , exact FV \nlevel must be given ; moreover, in the hypothesis of an inherited FV deficiency, FV levels in the \nparents should be given and discussed. Iterative plasma injections are mainly justified in patients \nwith severe Fv deficiency who have a high hemorraghic risk in surgical situations. So the paper \nshould be accepted for publication if FV level in the patient justifiy the therapeutic attitude only . \nMoreover, evolution of FV levels throughout the period of substitution should be presented. \nMinor criticism : \nThromboelastograms are not of any help here. Table 1 could be suppressed and results of \nhemostasis tests presented in the text \nThe paper is very long for a case report in which no truly novel information is presented \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
4 21 March 2006 Version: Date:
Jeffrey Weitz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The revised case report is now acceptable for publication.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
4 21 March 2006 Version: Date:
Jeffrey Weitz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The revised case report is now acceptable for publication.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_70_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.25,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.25
}
| 1.25
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title: \nExtra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction. \n 4 21 March 2006 Version: Date: \n Jeffrey Weitz Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThe revised case report is now acceptable for publication. \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNo competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
4 28 March 2006 Version: Date:
Takashi Kanematsu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Reject because scientifically unsound What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
4 28 March 2006 Version: Date:
Takashi Kanematsu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Reject because scientifically unsound What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_70_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title: \nExtra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction. \n 4 28 March 2006 Version: Date: \n Takashi Kanematsu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Reject because scientifically unsound What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
4 31 March 2006 Version: Date:
martine alhenc-gelas Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The supplementary information we required in our previous review has not been givn
Therefore we do not recommend to accept the paper for publication in BMC surgery
Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title:
Extra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction.
4 31 March 2006 Version: Date:
martine alhenc-gelas Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The supplementary information we required in our previous review has not been givn
Therefore we do not recommend to accept the paper for publication in BMC surgery
Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_70_ReviewerReport_V4_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.3333333333333333,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 0.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Splenectomy and Proximal Lieno-Renal Shunt in a Factor Five Deficient Patient with Title: \nExtra-Hepatic Portal Vein Obstruction. \n 4 31 March 2006 Version: Date: \n martine alhenc-gelas Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThe supplementary information we required in our previous review has not been givn \nTherefore we do not recommend to accept the paper for publication in BMC surgery \n Reject because too small an advance to publish What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-5
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
1 2 January 2006 Version: Date:
Frederic Triponez Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Dr Nilsson and colleagues report here a series of 272 open cholecystectomies performed in a
teaching district hospital. The manuscript is well written and the results compare favorably to the literature. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
In their study, the authors report on mini-laparotomy and in the Method section they describe their technique with incision length 4 to 8 cm, the currently accepted definition of “mini”, although some
authors would even prefer less than 7 or 6 cm. However, 50% of their patients had incision > 7 cm in
the elective group, including 25% > 15 cm and 50% of their patients had incision > 8 cm in the acute
group, including 25% > 20 cm. If they still want to report on “mini-laparotomy”, they have to explain in
details why half of their patients finally had conventional laparotomy. This would in fact represent a
failure of the intended mini-laparotomy, if analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. The fact that that 19%
of their patients had a common bile duct exploration could explain the bigger incision used in some
patients, but not in 50% of the patients.
Was there any difference in the outcome for patients with big incision compared to patients with
small incision ?
The authors need to give more information on the 10 patients with wound infection (3.7%): were
there patients with acute cholecystitis, patients in whom the gallbladder wall was left in situ, old patients, patients with high BMI, etc… In the results section, they report on 10 patients with wound
infection, in the discussion on 8 patients with wound infection. This discrepancy has to be clarified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
In the text (abstract, results), the authors use median and extremes but in the tables they use
median values with interquartile range; we suggest they report the same values uniformly throughout
the manuscript.
They should give more details on the use of antibiotics (one shot, 24 hours, 7 days ?), did it change
the wound infection rate ? Page 7, line 4: we do not understand the “resection of the ventricle with Roux-en-Y reconstruction”. Page 7, line 12: caliculi should be calculi, sphicterotomy should be sphincterotomy.
Page 8, line 20: cholecystactomies should be cholecystectomies
References: Many mistakes have been seen in the references; these include spelling mistakes (ref 4
choleycystectomy, ref 8 retrospecctive, ref 10 hav acute, etc…) but also mistakes in the authors (ref
13, author initials should be Seale AK, ref 27 contains 8 authors but only 3 are mentioned, etc…),
journal names (ref 3 “Ann Surg” but ref 26 “Annals of Surgery” for instance) and pages (ref 41
should be 1399 and not 13991 for instance). All the references should be carefully checked in the
revision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
1 2 January 2006 Version: Date:
Frederic Triponez Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Dr Nilsson and colleagues report here a series of 272 open cholecystectomies performed in a
teaching district hospital. The manuscript is well written and the results compare favorably to the literature. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
In their study, the authors report on mini-laparotomy and in the Method section they describe their technique with incision length 4 to 8 cm, the currently accepted definition of “mini”, although some
authors would even prefer less than 7 or 6 cm. However, 50% of their patients had incision > 7 cm in
the elective group, including 25% > 15 cm and 50% of their patients had incision > 8 cm in the acute
group, including 25% > 20 cm. If they still want to report on “mini-laparotomy”, they have to explain in
details why half of their patients finally had conventional laparotomy. This would in fact represent a
failure of the intended mini-laparotomy, if analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. The fact that that 19%
of their patients had a common bile duct exploration could explain the bigger incision used in some
patients, but not in 50% of the patients.
Was there any difference in the outcome for patients with big incision compared to patients with
small incision ?
The authors need to give more information on the 10 patients with wound infection (3.7%): were
there patients with acute cholecystitis, patients in whom the gallbladder wall was left in situ, old patients, patients with high BMI, etc… In the results section, they report on 10 patients with wound
infection, in the discussion on 8 patients with wound infection. This discrepancy has to be clarified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
In the text (abstract, results), the authors use median and extremes but in the tables they use
median values with interquartile range; we suggest they report the same values uniformly throughout
the manuscript.
They should give more details on the use of antibiotics (one shot, 24 hours, 7 days ?), did it change
the wound infection rate ? Page 7, line 4: we do not understand the “resection of the ventricle with Roux-en-Y reconstruction”. Page 7, line 12: caliculi should be calculi, sphicterotomy should be sphincterotomy.
Page 8, line 20: cholecystactomies should be cholecystectomies
References: Many mistakes have been seen in the references; these include spelling mistakes (ref 4
choleycystectomy, ref 8 retrospecctive, ref 10 hav acute, etc…) but also mistakes in the authors (ref
13, author initials should be Seale AK, ref 27 contains 8 authors but only 3 are mentioned, etc…),
journal names (ref 3 “Ann Surg” but ref 26 “Annals of Surgery” for instance) and pages (ref 41
should be 1399 and not 13991 for instance). All the references should be carefully checked in the
revision.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_68_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 6,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 9,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 21
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.09523809523809523,
"example": 0.23809523809523808,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2857142857142857,
"praise": 0.047619047619047616,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.42857142857142855,
"results_and_discussion": 0.19047619047619047,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 1.619048
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title: \n 1 2 January 2006 Version: Date: \n Frederic Triponez Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nDr Nilsson and colleagues report here a series of 272 open cholecystectomies performed in a \nteaching district hospital. The manuscript is well written and the results compare favorably to the literature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nIn their study, the authors report on mini-laparotomy and in the Method section they describe their technique with incision length 4 to 8 cm, the currently accepted definition of “mini”, although some \nauthors would even prefer less than 7 or 6 cm. However, 50% of their patients had incision > 7 cm in \nthe elective group, including 25% > 15 cm and 50% of their patients had incision > 8 cm in the acute \ngroup, including 25% > 20 cm. If they still want to report on “mini-laparotomy”, they have to explain in \ndetails why half of their patients finally had conventional laparotomy. This would in fact represent a \nfailure of the intended mini-laparotomy, if analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. The fact that that 19% \nof their patients had a common bile duct exploration could explain the bigger incision used in some \npatients, but not in 50% of the patients. \nWas there any difference in the outcome for patients with big incision compared to patients with \nsmall incision ? \nThe authors need to give more information on the 10 patients with wound infection (3.7%): were \nthere patients with acute cholecystitis, patients in whom the gallbladder wall was left in situ, old patients, patients with high BMI, etc… In the results section, they report on 10 patients with wound \ninfection, in the discussion on 8 patients with wound infection. This discrepancy has to be clarified. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nIn the text (abstract, results), the authors use median and extremes but in the tables they use \nmedian values with interquartile range; we suggest they report the same values uniformly throughout \nthe manuscript. \nThey should give more details on the use of antibiotics (one shot, 24 hours, 7 days ?), did it change \nthe wound infection rate ? Page 7, line 4: we do not understand the “resection of the ventricle with Roux-en-Y reconstruction”. Page 7, line 12: caliculi should be calculi, sphicterotomy should be sphincterotomy. \nPage 8, line 20: cholecystactomies should be cholecystectomies \nReferences: Many mistakes have been seen in the references; these include spelling mistakes (ref 4 \ncholeycystectomy, ref 8 retrospecctive, ref 10 hav acute, etc…) but also mistakes in the authors (ref \n13, author initials should be Seale AK, ref 27 contains 8 authors but only 3 are mentioned, etc…), \njournal names (ref 3 “Ann Surg” but ref 26 “Annals of Surgery” for instance) and pages (ref 41 \nshould be 1399 and not 13991 for instance). All the references should be carefully checked in the \nrevision. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-5
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
1 11 January 2006 Version: Date:
Peter Goodfellow Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The data is a little old 2002-3.
The major problem with this paper is the wound size. The techniques described use a maximum of 6cm 7cm or 8cm (depending on author) incision for "small incision cholecystectomy" or
"minilaparotomy". In the acute group the median was 8cm, elective 7cm, and 75th percentiles were
20 and 15cm. Almost half of the patients in this series have had surgery through traditional larger
incisions yet been describes as mini incision surgery. it would be interesting to know why so many patients needed bigger incisions since the small incision technique rarely needs extending....
perhaps more complicated cases, perhaps trainees? A transverse incision 5cm below the xiphoid as
described cannot be extended to 20cm plus without turning it into an oblique incision because of the ribs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
P. 7 Resection of the ventricle - not sure what this is? P. 8 Cholecystectomies spelled wrongly 6 lines from end of page
P. 6 Cholangiopancreatography spelled incorrectly
P. 5 Doxycycline, cefuroxime misspelt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
1 11 January 2006 Version: Date:
Peter Goodfellow Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The data is a little old 2002-3.
The major problem with this paper is the wound size. The techniques described use a maximum of 6cm 7cm or 8cm (depending on author) incision for "small incision cholecystectomy" or
"minilaparotomy". In the acute group the median was 8cm, elective 7cm, and 75th percentiles were
20 and 15cm. Almost half of the patients in this series have had surgery through traditional larger
incisions yet been describes as mini incision surgery. it would be interesting to know why so many patients needed bigger incisions since the small incision technique rarely needs extending....
perhaps more complicated cases, perhaps trainees? A transverse incision 5cm below the xiphoid as
described cannot be extended to 20cm plus without turning it into an oblique incision because of the ribs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
P. 7 Resection of the ventricle - not sure what this is? P. 8 Cholecystectomies spelled wrongly 6 lines from end of page
P. 6 Cholangiopancreatography spelled incorrectly
P. 5 Doxycycline, cefuroxime misspelt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_68_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 5,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 11
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2727272727272727,
"example": 0.18181818181818182,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.45454545454545453,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.18181818181818182,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.18181818181818182
}
| 1.272727
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title: \n 1 11 January 2006 Version: Date: \n Peter Goodfellow Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe data is a little old 2002-3. \nThe major problem with this paper is the wound size. The techniques described use a maximum of 6cm 7cm or 8cm (depending on author) incision for \"small incision cholecystectomy\" or \n\"minilaparotomy\". In the acute group the median was 8cm, elective 7cm, and 75th percentiles were \n20 and 15cm. Almost half of the patients in this series have had surgery through traditional larger \nincisions yet been describes as mini incision surgery. it would be interesting to know why so many patients needed bigger incisions since the small incision technique rarely needs extending.... \nperhaps more complicated cases, perhaps trainees? A transverse incision 5cm below the xiphoid as \ndescribed cannot be extended to 20cm plus without turning it into an oblique incision because of the ribs \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nP. 7 Resection of the ventricle - not sure what this is? P. 8 Cholecystectomies spelled wrongly 6 lines from end of page \nP. 6 Cholangiopancreatography spelled incorrectly \nP. 5 Doxycycline, cefuroxime misspelt \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-5
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
4 15 February 2006 Version: Date:
Frederic Triponez Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have made the suggested changes abd the manuscript can be accepted for publication
after minor revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
There are still mistakes in the references (and I did not check all of them): ref 4: choleycystectomy - cholecystectomy ref 24: Spetz, CL - Spetz CL.
ref 36: recidents - residents
ref 41: pages number 13991 is not correct ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
I would suggest the authors add the p-value for their comparisons:
In Results: postoperative stay 1.8 vs 3 days, p = In Results, last paragraph: older: 67 vs 54 p = ??, emergency: 30% vs 38%, p = ??, BMI: 27.3 vs 28.3, p = ??
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
4 15 February 2006 Version: Date:
Frederic Triponez Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have made the suggested changes abd the manuscript can be accepted for publication
after minor revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
There are still mistakes in the references (and I did not check all of them): ref 4: choleycystectomy - cholecystectomy ref 24: Spetz, CL - Spetz CL.
ref 36: recidents - residents
ref 41: pages number 13991 is not correct ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
I would suggest the authors add the p-value for their comparisons:
In Results: postoperative stay 1.8 vs 3 days, p = In Results, last paragraph: older: 67 vs 54 p = ??, emergency: 30% vs 38%, p = ??, BMI: 27.3 vs 28.3, p = ??
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_68_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 10
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.1,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2,
"results_and_discussion": 0.1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.2
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title: \n 4 15 February 2006 Version: Date: \n Frederic Triponez Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors have made the suggested changes abd the manuscript can be accepted for publication \nafter minor revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThere are still mistakes in the references (and I did not check all of them): ref 4: choleycystectomy - cholecystectomy ref 24: Spetz, CL - Spetz CL. \nref 36: recidents - residents \nref 41: pages number 13991 is not correct ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nI would suggest the authors add the p-value for their comparisons: \nIn Results: postoperative stay 1.8 vs 3 days, p = In Results, last paragraph: older: 67 vs 54 p = ??, emergency: 30% vs 38%, p = ??, BMI: 27.3 vs 28.3, p = ?? \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-5
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
4 23 February 2006 Version: Date:
Peter Goodfellow Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Nil to add new.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
Nil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Nil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Might consider including comments on reasons for size of incision in discussion as per covering
letter.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
Reviewer's report
Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title:
4 23 February 2006 Version: Date:
Peter Goodfellow Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Nil to add new.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
Nil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Nil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Might consider including comments on reasons for size of incision in discussion as per covering
letter.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_68_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 6
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.16666666666666666,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.16666666666666666,
"materials_and_methods": 0.16666666666666666,
"praise": 0.16666666666666666,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.16666666666666666,
"results_and_discussion": 0.16666666666666666,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 1.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Minilaparotomy cholecystectomy for all patients. A prospective cohort study. Title: \n 4 23 February 2006 Version: Date: \n Peter Goodfellow Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nNil to add new. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nNil \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nNil \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nMight consider including comments on reasons for size of incision in discussion as per covering \nletter. \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-4
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title:
1 26 October 2005 Version: Date:
Basil J J Ammori Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Well presented case report of a first case of gastric bezoar consisting of 'plaster'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title:
1 26 October 2005 Version: Date:
Basil J J Ammori Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Well presented case report of a first case of gastric bezoar consisting of 'plaster'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_67_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 1.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title: \n 1 26 October 2005 Version: Date: \n Basil J J Ammori Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nWell presented case report of a first case of gastric bezoar consisting of 'plaster'! \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-4
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title:
1 22 November 2005 Version: Date:
Constandinos Simopoulos Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes a first time reported case of a bezoar resulting from plaster ingestion. The case
can be used for educational purposes.
The paper can be accepted for publication after MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS based on the
following comments:
1. The use of English is poor and needs major corrections before second submission.
2. The Background section should be totally rewritten and focus on obstruction by bezoars
(according to the title of the paper). Peculiar suicidal attempts are not the subject of the paper, although such an attempt was the reason of the patient’s condition. All the material presented
currently in the background section of the paper should be summarized in 2-3 lines (one paragraph).
3. Several descriptions in the case report are not necessary and are expected (e.g., “… due to her
husband’s infidelities”, “She was admitted to emergency ward”, “The abdominal incision was closed”
etc.) They should be removed to make the description more concise and to the point.
4. The discussion section should be expanded, emphasizing bezoar obstruction. We suggest to
include the following recent and rare case of bezoar obstruction:
M. Pitiakoudis, A.K. Tsaroucha, K. Mimidis, Th. Costadinidis, S. Anagnostoulis, G. Stathopoulos, C.
Simopoulos. (2003). Esophageal and Small Bowel Obstruction by Occupational Bezoar: Report of a
Case. BMC Gastroenterology, Vol. 3, No. 13, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/3/13.
|
Reviewer's report
Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title:
1 22 November 2005 Version: Date:
Constandinos Simopoulos Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The paper describes a first time reported case of a bezoar resulting from plaster ingestion. The case
can be used for educational purposes.
The paper can be accepted for publication after MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS based on the
following comments:
1. The use of English is poor and needs major corrections before second submission.
2. The Background section should be totally rewritten and focus on obstruction by bezoars
(according to the title of the paper). Peculiar suicidal attempts are not the subject of the paper, although such an attempt was the reason of the patient’s condition. All the material presented
currently in the background section of the paper should be summarized in 2-3 lines (one paragraph).
3. Several descriptions in the case report are not necessary and are expected (e.g., “… due to her
husband’s infidelities”, “She was admitted to emergency ward”, “The abdominal incision was closed”
etc.) They should be removed to make the description more concise and to the point.
4. The discussion section should be expanded, emphasizing bezoar obstruction. We suggest to
include the following recent and rare case of bezoar obstruction:
M. Pitiakoudis, A.K. Tsaroucha, K. Mimidis, Th. Costadinidis, S. Anagnostoulis, G. Stathopoulos, C.
Simopoulos. (2003). Esophageal and Small Bowel Obstruction by Occupational Bezoar: Report of a
Case. BMC Gastroenterology, Vol. 3, No. 13, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/3/13.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_67_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 5,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 8,
"total": 21
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.047619047619047616,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.047619047619047616,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.23809523809523808,
"results_and_discussion": 0.047619047619047616,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.38095238095238093
}
| 0.761905
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title: \n 1 22 November 2005 Version: Date: \n Constandinos Simopoulos Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThe paper describes a first time reported case of a bezoar resulting from plaster ingestion. The case \ncan be used for educational purposes. \nThe paper can be accepted for publication after MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS based on the \nfollowing comments: \n1. The use of English is poor and needs major corrections before second submission. \n2. The Background section should be totally rewritten and focus on obstruction by bezoars \n(according to the title of the paper). Peculiar suicidal attempts are not the subject of the paper, although such an attempt was the reason of the patient’s condition. All the material presented \ncurrently in the background section of the paper should be summarized in 2-3 lines (one paragraph). \n3. Several descriptions in the case report are not necessary and are expected (e.g., “… due to her \nhusband’s infidelities”, “She was admitted to emergency ward”, “The abdominal incision was closed” \netc.) They should be removed to make the description more concise and to the point. \n4. The discussion section should be expanded, emphasizing bezoar obstruction. We suggest to \ninclude the following recent and rare case of bezoar obstruction: \nM. Pitiakoudis, A.K. Tsaroucha, K. Mimidis, Th. Costadinidis, S. Anagnostoulis, G. Stathopoulos, C. \nSimopoulos. (2003). Esophageal and Small Bowel Obstruction by Occupational Bezoar: Report of a \nCase. BMC Gastroenterology, Vol. 3, No. 13, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-230X/3/13. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-4
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title:
2 13 January 2006 Version: Date:
Constandinos Simopoulos Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have addressed all the comments, therefore, I propose to ACCEPT
the paper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
|
Reviewer's report
Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title:
2 13 January 2006 Version: Date:
Constandinos Simopoulos Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have addressed all the comments, therefore, I propose to ACCEPT
the paper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_67_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 0.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Gastrointestinal obstruction due to plaster ingestion: a case-report Title: \n 2 13 January 2006 Version: Date: \n Constandinos Simopoulos Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors have addressed all the comments, therefore, I propose to ACCEPT \nthe paper. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon) Title:
1 17 September 2005 Version: Date:
francis seow-choen Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This report details one case of abdominal cocoon. It also reviews the literature and highlights
relevent pointers tot he diagnosis. Although it is a singular case report, it will be of interest to readers
due to the rarity of the condition and the fact that this patient was male.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
Reviewer's report
Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon) Title:
1 17 September 2005 Version: Date:
francis seow-choen Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This report details one case of abdominal cocoon. It also reviews the literature and highlights
relevent pointers tot he diagnosis. Although it is a singular case report, it will be of interest to readers
due to the rarity of the condition and the fact that this patient was male.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_66_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.2
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon) Title: \n 1 17 September 2005 Version: Date: \n francis seow-choen Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThis report details one case of abdominal cocoon. It also reviews the literature and highlights \nrelevent pointers tot he diagnosis. Although it is a singular case report, it will be of interest to readers \ndue to the rarity of the condition and the fact that this patient was male. \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon) Title:
1 25 October 2005 Version: Date:
Stefania Romano Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a report of uncommon but not extremely rare conditions, nicely described.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
No-one
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Can you please save the abdominal radiograph in white and black format, to avoid any "blue color"
be evident on the image? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'below.
|
Reviewer's report
Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon) Title:
1 25 October 2005 Version: Date:
Stefania Romano Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a report of uncommon but not extremely rare conditions, nicely described.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
No-one
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Can you please save the abdominal radiograph in white and black format, to avoid any "blue color"
be evident on the image? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests'below.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_66_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.75,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5
}
| 2.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Idiopathic sclerosing encapsulating peritonitis (or abdominal cocoon) Title: \n 1 25 October 2005 Version: Date: \n Stefania Romano Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is a report of uncommon but not extremely rare conditions, nicely described. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nNo-one \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nCan you please save the abdominal radiograph in white and black format, to avoid any \"blue color\" \nbe evident on the image? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests'below. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
1 7 February 2005 Version: Date:
WL Law Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions: The small number of studies included and the heterogeneity of these
studies for a definite conclusion should emphasized.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
1 7 February 2005 Version: Date:
WL Law Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions: The small number of studies included and the heterogeneity of these
studies for a definite conclusion should emphasized.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_65_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title: \nTrials \n 1 7 February 2005 Version: Date: \n WL Law Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions: The small number of studies included and the heterogeneity of these \nstudies for a definite conclusion should emphasized. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
1 14 February 2005 Version: Date:
Patrick Offner Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a well-written meta-analysis of one versus two layer intestinal anastomoses. The methods and analysis are sound and the conclusions justified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) None -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) None -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
none
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
1 14 February 2005 Version: Date:
Patrick Offner Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a well-written meta-analysis of one versus two layer intestinal anastomoses. The methods and analysis are sound and the conclusions justified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) None -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) None -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
none
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_65_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.75,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0.5,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 2.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title: \nTrials \n 1 14 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Patrick Offner Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is a well-written meta-analysis of one versus two layer intestinal anastomoses. The methods and analysis are sound and the conclusions justified. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nnone \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
1 27 July 2005 Version: Date:
Roger Harbord Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing single- and two-layer intestinal
anastomosis. The topic appears to be one of practical importance to those in the field. The literature
search appears sound and the study is well reported, generally adhering to the QUOROM guidelines
for reporting meta-analyses that are supported by BMC Surgery. However I have several concerns
about the analysis and the conclusions drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
(1) The conclusion that there is no difference between the two methods is too strong. The
confidence interval is wide and includes clinically important effects, so the conclusion should be that
there is no evidence of a difference but that there is insufficient evidence to rule out a modest but
potentially important difference.
(2) The summary estimate and confidence interval for the odds ratio reported appear to be from the
fixed-effect analysis, not the random-effects analysis as stated. Figure 2 also appears to show the fixed-effect analysis. The random-effects confidence interval is considerably wider (RR= 0.91, 95%
CI 0.49 to 1.69 by my calculations).
(3) As noted by the authors in the Discussion, suture techniques varied between the trials. I am
surprised that they do not consider the possible impact of this in more detail. The study with by far
the highest risk of leakage in one arm of the trial (Goligher, single layer, 45%) also has a suture
technique in that arm that was not used elsewhere. This study is also responsible for most of the between-study heterogeneity and is the only one that when considered on its own gives good evidence for a risk ratio greater than one. It is therefore an "outlier" in several respects. As this trial
has the largest weight in the meta-analysis due to its high event rates, if it were excluded as a
sensitivity analysis the results would change substantially. Although this is a post-hoc finding (suture
technique was not included in the covariates listed as possible sources of heterogeneity in the
Methods) it is surely worthy of discussion. I am not a surgeon and have little idea of the plausibility of
this as an explanation for the high leakage rate, or whether the suture technique in question
("vertical mattress and Lembert") is still in common use in intestinal anastomosis. In any case, a sensivity analysis excluding this study appears highly desirable.
(4) It is not valid to use standard meta-regression techniques to look at the relationship between risk
in one trial arm and the risk ratio (Stephen J. Sharp, Simon G. Thompson, and Douglas G. Altman.
The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis. BMJ 313 (7059):735-738, 1996.). Also the justification for calling the two-layer group the control group and
looking at risk only in this group is not stated. Valid methods are available but are somewhat more
complex, so I would suggest an informal graphical exploration using a L'Abbé plot of risk in one arm
vs the risk in the other arm (without a fitted regression line).
(5) The search strategy should be documented as described in the Instructions for Authors
<http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcsurg/ifora/>: "For authors of systematic reviews, a supplementary file, linked from the Methods section, should reproduce all details concerning the
search strategy. For an example of how a search strategy should be presented, see the Cochrane
Reviewers' Handbook."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
(6) Table 1. The reporting of numbers as single / two-layer is confusing as the usual convention in
meta-analysis is (no. in group experiencing event) / (total in group). This is also easier to interpret
especially if also given as a percentage, e.g. in the form 31 / 69 (45%).
(7) Figure 2: replace "single-layer favor" by "Favors single-layer" (and similarly for two-layer).
(8) Figure 2 : the note in the legend that "the pooled risk ratio for leaks in single-layer group is 1.00
(95% CI = 0.71 to 1.42)" can be deleted as it is both strictly incorrect (a risk ratio _compares_ groups) and unnecessary (it is obvious from the figure and repeated in the main text).
(9) The risk ratio and confidence interval for the Burch study in Figure 2 are not consistent with the
numbers reported in Table 1. One or the other requires correcting.
(10) The meta-analysis routines in Stata are user-written add-ons not part of the base package, so
the authors should state the particular routines used and reference their sources and authors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
(11) "The use of summary scores from quality scales is problematic - it is preferable to examine the
influence of key components of methodological quality individually" (Peter Jüni, Douglas G. Altman,
and Matthias Egger. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical
trials. BMJ 323 (7303):42-46, 2001.). In this case the Jadad score appears particularly inappropriate
since, as stated by the authors, blinded outcome assessment is virtually impossible in surgical trials.
I would therefore suggest that the assessment of quality should separately consider one or more of
the other components suggested by Jüni et al: the generation and concealment of the allocation
sequence and handling of patient attrition.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
1 27 July 2005 Version: Date:
Roger Harbord Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing single- and two-layer intestinal
anastomosis. The topic appears to be one of practical importance to those in the field. The literature
search appears sound and the study is well reported, generally adhering to the QUOROM guidelines
for reporting meta-analyses that are supported by BMC Surgery. However I have several concerns
about the analysis and the conclusions drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
(1) The conclusion that there is no difference between the two methods is too strong. The
confidence interval is wide and includes clinically important effects, so the conclusion should be that
there is no evidence of a difference but that there is insufficient evidence to rule out a modest but
potentially important difference.
(2) The summary estimate and confidence interval for the odds ratio reported appear to be from the
fixed-effect analysis, not the random-effects analysis as stated. Figure 2 also appears to show the fixed-effect analysis. The random-effects confidence interval is considerably wider (RR= 0.91, 95%
CI 0.49 to 1.69 by my calculations).
(3) As noted by the authors in the Discussion, suture techniques varied between the trials. I am
surprised that they do not consider the possible impact of this in more detail. The study with by far
the highest risk of leakage in one arm of the trial (Goligher, single layer, 45%) also has a suture
technique in that arm that was not used elsewhere. This study is also responsible for most of the between-study heterogeneity and is the only one that when considered on its own gives good evidence for a risk ratio greater than one. It is therefore an "outlier" in several respects. As this trial
has the largest weight in the meta-analysis due to its high event rates, if it were excluded as a
sensitivity analysis the results would change substantially. Although this is a post-hoc finding (suture
technique was not included in the covariates listed as possible sources of heterogeneity in the
Methods) it is surely worthy of discussion. I am not a surgeon and have little idea of the plausibility of
this as an explanation for the high leakage rate, or whether the suture technique in question
("vertical mattress and Lembert") is still in common use in intestinal anastomosis. In any case, a sensivity analysis excluding this study appears highly desirable.
(4) It is not valid to use standard meta-regression techniques to look at the relationship between risk
in one trial arm and the risk ratio (Stephen J. Sharp, Simon G. Thompson, and Douglas G. Altman.
The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis. BMJ 313 (7059):735-738, 1996.). Also the justification for calling the two-layer group the control group and
looking at risk only in this group is not stated. Valid methods are available but are somewhat more
complex, so I would suggest an informal graphical exploration using a L'Abbé plot of risk in one arm
vs the risk in the other arm (without a fitted regression line).
(5) The search strategy should be documented as described in the Instructions for Authors
<http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcsurg/ifora/>: "For authors of systematic reviews, a supplementary file, linked from the Methods section, should reproduce all details concerning the
search strategy. For an example of how a search strategy should be presented, see the Cochrane
Reviewers' Handbook."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
(6) Table 1. The reporting of numbers as single / two-layer is confusing as the usual convention in
meta-analysis is (no. in group experiencing event) / (total in group). This is also easier to interpret
especially if also given as a percentage, e.g. in the form 31 / 69 (45%).
(7) Figure 2: replace "single-layer favor" by "Favors single-layer" (and similarly for two-layer).
(8) Figure 2 : the note in the legend that "the pooled risk ratio for leaks in single-layer group is 1.00
(95% CI = 0.71 to 1.42)" can be deleted as it is both strictly incorrect (a risk ratio _compares_ groups) and unnecessary (it is obvious from the figure and repeated in the main text).
(9) The risk ratio and confidence interval for the Burch study in Figure 2 are not consistent with the
numbers reported in Table 1. One or the other requires correcting.
(10) The meta-analysis routines in Stata are user-written add-ons not part of the base package, so
the authors should state the particular routines used and reference their sources and authors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
(11) "The use of summary scores from quality scales is problematic - it is preferable to examine the
influence of key components of methodological quality individually" (Peter Jüni, Douglas G. Altman,
and Matthias Egger. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical
trials. BMJ 323 (7303):42-46, 2001.). In this case the Jadad score appears particularly inappropriate
since, as stated by the authors, blinded outcome assessment is virtually impossible in surgical trials.
I would therefore suggest that the assessment of quality should separately consider one or more of
the other components suggested by Jüni et al: the generation and concealment of the allocation
sequence and handling of patient attrition.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_65_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 12,
"example": 6,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 27,
"praise": 6,
"presentation_and_reporting": 10,
"results_and_discussion": 13,
"suggestion_and_solution": 10,
"total": 43
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.27906976744186046,
"example": 0.13953488372093023,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.06976744186046512,
"materials_and_methods": 0.627906976744186,
"praise": 0.13953488372093023,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.23255813953488372,
"results_and_discussion": 0.3023255813953488,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.23255813953488372
}
| 2.023256
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title: \nTrials \n 1 27 July 2005 Version: Date: \n Roger Harbord Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing single- and two-layer intestinal \nanastomosis. The topic appears to be one of practical importance to those in the field. The literature \nsearch appears sound and the study is well reported, generally adhering to the QUOROM guidelines \nfor reporting meta-analyses that are supported by BMC Surgery. However I have several concerns \nabout the analysis and the conclusions drawn. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n(1) The conclusion that there is no difference between the two methods is too strong. The \nconfidence interval is wide and includes clinically important effects, so the conclusion should be that \nthere is no evidence of a difference but that there is insufficient evidence to rule out a modest but \npotentially important difference. \n(2) The summary estimate and confidence interval for the odds ratio reported appear to be from the \nfixed-effect analysis, not the random-effects analysis as stated. Figure 2 also appears to show the fixed-effect analysis. The random-effects confidence interval is considerably wider (RR= 0.91, 95% \nCI 0.49 to 1.69 by my calculations). \n(3) As noted by the authors in the Discussion, suture techniques varied between the trials. I am \nsurprised that they do not consider the possible impact of this in more detail. The study with by far \nthe highest risk of leakage in one arm of the trial (Goligher, single layer, 45%) also has a suture \ntechnique in that arm that was not used elsewhere. This study is also responsible for most of the between-study heterogeneity and is the only one that when considered on its own gives good evidence for a risk ratio greater than one. It is therefore an \"outlier\" in several respects. As this trial \nhas the largest weight in the meta-analysis due to its high event rates, if it were excluded as a \nsensitivity analysis the results would change substantially. Although this is a post-hoc finding (suture \ntechnique was not included in the covariates listed as possible sources of heterogeneity in the \nMethods) it is surely worthy of discussion. I am not a surgeon and have little idea of the plausibility of \nthis as an explanation for the high leakage rate, or whether the suture technique in question \n(\"vertical mattress and Lembert\") is still in common use in intestinal anastomosis. In any case, a sensivity analysis excluding this study appears highly desirable. \n(4) It is not valid to use standard meta-regression techniques to look at the relationship between risk \nin one trial arm and the risk ratio (Stephen J. Sharp, Simon G. Thompson, and Douglas G. Altman. \nThe relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis. BMJ 313 (7059):735-738, 1996.). Also the justification for calling the two-layer group the control group and \nlooking at risk only in this group is not stated. Valid methods are available but are somewhat more \ncomplex, so I would suggest an informal graphical exploration using a L'Abbé plot of risk in one arm \nvs the risk in the other arm (without a fitted regression line). \n(5) The search strategy should be documented as described in the Instructions for Authors \n<http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcsurg/ifora/>: \"For authors of systematic reviews, a supplementary file, linked from the Methods section, should reproduce all details concerning the \nsearch strategy. For an example of how a search strategy should be presented, see the Cochrane \nReviewers' Handbook.\" \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n(6) Table 1. The reporting of numbers as single / two-layer is confusing as the usual convention in \nmeta-analysis is (no. in group experiencing event) / (total in group). This is also easier to interpret \nespecially if also given as a percentage, e.g. in the form 31 / 69 (45%). \n(7) Figure 2: replace \"single-layer favor\" by \"Favors single-layer\" (and similarly for two-layer). \n(8) Figure 2 : the note in the legend that \"the pooled risk ratio for leaks in single-layer group is 1.00 \n(95% CI = 0.71 to 1.42)\" can be deleted as it is both strictly incorrect (a risk ratio _compares_ groups) and unnecessary (it is obvious from the figure and repeated in the main text). \n(9) The risk ratio and confidence interval for the Burch study in Figure 2 are not consistent with the \nnumbers reported in Table 1. One or the other requires correcting. \n(10) The meta-analysis routines in Stata are user-written add-ons not part of the base package, so \nthe authors should state the particular routines used and reference their sources and authors. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n(11) \"The use of summary scores from quality scales is problematic - it is preferable to examine the \ninfluence of key components of methodological quality individually\" (Peter Jüni, Douglas G. Altman, \nand Matthias Egger. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical \ntrials. BMJ 323 (7303):42-46, 2001.). In this case the Jadad score appears particularly inappropriate \nsince, as stated by the authors, blinded outcome assessment is virtually impossible in surgical trials. \nI would therefore suggest that the assessment of quality should separately consider one or more of \nthe other components suggested by Jüni et al: the generation and concealment of the allocation \nsequence and handling of patient attrition. \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
2 7 October 2005 Version: Date:
Roger Harbord Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have accepted most of my suggested revisions and I am generally happy with their
responses and the changes made. However, they have not altered the conclusion section of the
abstract and I still consider that this is too strongly worded given the results.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
1) I suggest that in the conclusion section of the abstract, "no advantage is derived.." be revised to
better reflect the very wide confidence interval around the combined risk ratio (0.49 to 1.69). For
instance, "We found no evidence that an advantage is derived..", or, "No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer".
2) The two new sentences the authors have added to the "Discussion - limitations" section need
some revision as the first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence appear virtually
contradictory:
"First, the study by Goligher et al. had an effect on the main result strongly. Although the main result
was not sensitive to the sensitivity analysis excluding this study,..."
Perhaps this should read something along the lines of:
"First, the study by Goligher et al. had a substantial influence on the combined risk ratio. However, the main conclusion of a lack of evidence for an advantage of two-layer over single-layer
anastomosis is unaffected, as the result of a sensitivity analysis excluding this study was more
favourable to single-layer."
3) There are a few other minor language corrections needed, particularly in the new material added
e.g.:
"none of the variables for year of publication, mean age
of study participants, and percentage of male patients.." ->
"neither year of publication, mean age of study participants, nor percentage of male patients.."
"Although one possible explanation of this high rate of leaks may be caused by their inclusion
criteria, ..., it is inexplicable for all". Delete "caused by". Meaning of "it is inexplicable for all" is unclear.
"To say the least, this suture technique is not common .. in the present day" ("to say the least" needs
to be changed or deleted)
In "Discussion- limitations", "Secondly, quality of" -> "Secondly, the quality of.."
Table 2 "colo-anal anastomosis, so low in the pelvis" (meaning unclear).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title:
Trials
2 7 October 2005 Version: Date:
Roger Harbord Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have accepted most of my suggested revisions and I am generally happy with their
responses and the changes made. However, they have not altered the conclusion section of the
abstract and I still consider that this is too strongly worded given the results.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
1) I suggest that in the conclusion section of the abstract, "no advantage is derived.." be revised to
better reflect the very wide confidence interval around the combined risk ratio (0.49 to 1.69). For
instance, "We found no evidence that an advantage is derived..", or, "No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer".
2) The two new sentences the authors have added to the "Discussion - limitations" section need
some revision as the first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence appear virtually
contradictory:
"First, the study by Goligher et al. had an effect on the main result strongly. Although the main result
was not sensitive to the sensitivity analysis excluding this study,..."
Perhaps this should read something along the lines of:
"First, the study by Goligher et al. had a substantial influence on the combined risk ratio. However, the main conclusion of a lack of evidence for an advantage of two-layer over single-layer
anastomosis is unaffected, as the result of a sensitivity analysis excluding this study was more
favourable to single-layer."
3) There are a few other minor language corrections needed, particularly in the new material added
e.g.:
"none of the variables for year of publication, mean age
of study participants, and percentage of male patients.." ->
"neither year of publication, mean age of study participants, nor percentage of male patients.."
"Although one possible explanation of this high rate of leaks may be caused by their inclusion
criteria, ..., it is inexplicable for all". Delete "caused by". Meaning of "it is inexplicable for all" is unclear.
"To say the least, this suture technique is not common .. in the present day" ("to say the least" needs
to be changed or deleted)
In "Discussion- limitations", "Secondly, quality of" -> "Secondly, the quality of.."
Table 2 "colo-anal anastomosis, so low in the pelvis" (meaning unclear).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_65_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 5,
"example": 9,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 4,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 9,
"results_and_discussion": 8,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 18
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2777777777777778,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.05555555555555555,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2222222222222222,
"praise": 0.05555555555555555,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0.4444444444444444,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3888888888888889
}
| 2.444444
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Single- Versus Two- Layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Title: \nTrials \n 2 7 October 2005 Version: Date: \n Roger Harbord Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors have accepted most of my suggested revisions and I am generally happy with their \nresponses and the changes made. However, they have not altered the conclusion section of the \nabstract and I still consider that this is too strongly worded given the results. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nNone. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n1) I suggest that in the conclusion section of the abstract, \"no advantage is derived..\" be revised to \nbetter reflect the very wide confidence interval around the combined risk ratio (0.49 to 1.69). For \ninstance, \"We found no evidence that an advantage is derived..\", or, \"No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer\". \n2) The two new sentences the authors have added to the \"Discussion - limitations\" section need \nsome revision as the first sentence and the first clause of the second sentence appear virtually \ncontradictory: \n\"First, the study by Goligher et al. had an effect on the main result strongly. Although the main result \nwas not sensitive to the sensitivity analysis excluding this study,...\" \nPerhaps this should read something along the lines of: \n\"First, the study by Goligher et al. had a substantial influence on the combined risk ratio. However, the main conclusion of a lack of evidence for an advantage of two-layer over single-layer \nanastomosis is unaffected, as the result of a sensitivity analysis excluding this study was more \nfavourable to single-layer.\" \n3) There are a few other minor language corrections needed, particularly in the new material added \ne.g.: \n\"none of the variables for year of publication, mean age \nof study participants, and percentage of male patients..\" -> \n\"neither year of publication, mean age of study participants, nor percentage of male patients..\" \n\"Although one possible explanation of this high rate of leaks may be caused by their inclusion \ncriteria, ..., it is inexplicable for all\". Delete \"caused by\". Meaning of \"it is inexplicable for all\" is unclear. \n\"To say the least, this suture technique is not common .. in the present day\" (\"to say the least\" needs \nto be changed or deleted) \nIn \"Discussion- limitations\", \"Secondly, quality of\" -> \"Secondly, the quality of..\" \nTable 2 \"colo-anal anastomosis, so low in the pelvis\" (meaning unclear). \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nNone. \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-1
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title:
emergency
1 7 October 2005 Version: Date:
David I Watson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This paper describes a rare and interesting case of perforated DU in a large hiatus hernia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
The concluding sentence of the abstract is somewhat misleading – this problem (as admitted in the
discussion) had been described before. The authors only claim to a “first” is that their pateints
survived. The conclusion should be reworded accordingly.
The case presentation is too long, and it contains a lot of information which is not relevant to the
message of the paper. It should be shortened by 50%.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors decision to open into the right pleural cavity does not make sense. Satisfactory
mediastinal drainage can be achieved by placing drains via the reconstructed oesophageal hiatus.
Once the pleura is opened, the pleural cavity is contaminated and any GIT leakage will tend to
collect in this cavity. Hence, it doesn’t make good sense to open the right pleura, solely for the purpose of mediastinal drainage when the abdominal route will achieve this. The alternative should
be acknowledged and discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Figure 3 is unclear. It does not add to the case report, and could easily be deleted.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title:
emergency
1 7 October 2005 Version: Date:
David I Watson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This paper describes a rare and interesting case of perforated DU in a large hiatus hernia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
The concluding sentence of the abstract is somewhat misleading – this problem (as admitted in the
discussion) had been described before. The authors only claim to a “first” is that their pateints
survived. The conclusion should be reworded accordingly.
The case presentation is too long, and it contains a lot of information which is not relevant to the
message of the paper. It should be shortened by 50%.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors decision to open into the right pleural cavity does not make sense. Satisfactory
mediastinal drainage can be achieved by placing drains via the reconstructed oesophageal hiatus.
Once the pleura is opened, the pleural cavity is contaminated and any GIT leakage will tend to
collect in this cavity. Hence, it doesn’t make good sense to open the right pleura, solely for the purpose of mediastinal drainage when the abdominal route will achieve this. The alternative should
be acknowledged and discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Figure 3 is unclear. It does not add to the case report, and could easily be deleted.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_64_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 5,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 8,
"results_and_discussion": 3,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 15
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.3333333333333333,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.06666666666666667,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.13333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.26666666666666666
}
| 1.733333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title: \nemergency \n 1 7 October 2005 Version: Date: \n David I Watson Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis paper describes a rare and interesting case of perforated DU in a large hiatus hernia. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nThe concluding sentence of the abstract is somewhat misleading – this problem (as admitted in the \ndiscussion) had been described before. The authors only claim to a “first” is that their pateints \nsurvived. The conclusion should be reworded accordingly. \nThe case presentation is too long, and it contains a lot of information which is not relevant to the \nmessage of the paper. It should be shortened by 50%. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThe authors decision to open into the right pleural cavity does not make sense. Satisfactory \nmediastinal drainage can be achieved by placing drains via the reconstructed oesophageal hiatus. \nOnce the pleura is opened, the pleural cavity is contaminated and any GIT leakage will tend to \ncollect in this cavity. Hence, it doesn’t make good sense to open the right pleura, solely for the purpose of mediastinal drainage when the abdominal route will achieve this. The alternative should \nbe acknowledged and discussed. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nFigure 3 is unclear. It does not add to the case report, and could easily be deleted. \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-1
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title:
emergency
1 25 October 2005 Version: Date:
Wing Tai T Siu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
This is an extremely uncommon case of perforated duodenal ulcer complicating a incarcerated
paraesophaegal hernia. • Background
o Should consider re-siting second paragraph to discussion section.
o The statement on the 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph (page 3, lines 20-21) should be re-phrase or re-write. Decompression of suspected strangulated paraesophageal hernia by naso-gastric tube
alone is not a safe clinical approach to postpone a life-threatening condition. Catastrophic
complications like uncontrolled bleeding, strangulation and perforation demand emergency surgical
management.
• Case presentation
o Clinical findings on presentation, post-operative management and clinical course of the patient
should be concisely written.
o Paraesophaegal hernia is characterized by herniation of gastric fundus alongside the distal
esophagus through the hiatus, while the gastroesophageal junction remains in a reasonably normal position. Large paraesophageal hernia may associate with organoaxial volvulus of stomach that
could lead to an “up-side down stomach” and intrathoracic herniation of transverse colon. Could the
authors clarify the operative / radiological findings for the evidence gastric volvulus.
o Size of the duodenal perforated should be mentioned. (page 5, line 21) o Why prolene is chosen for repair of duodenal perforation, as most surgeons favor repair with
absorbable sutures. (page 5, line 22)
o Presumably the spleen was inadvertently damaged at the time of operation (page 5, line 24). Was
it related to stretching the ligaments and vessels of the paraesophageal herniation?
o Full course of potent antibiotic and high-dose proton pump inhibitor infusion are generally not
recommended for prophylaxis. (page 6, lines 9-11)
• Conclusion o The section should rephrase as “Discussion” o The description on the mode of presentation, pros and cons of elective repair of asymptomatic
paresophageal hernia is informative to reader. However, the author should also mention that there is
no dispute for operative management of the present case with evidence of gastric outlet obstruction
and epigastric pain. o Controversy somehow exists in the selection of best approach for elective repair of
paraesophageal hernia. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has been shown to be feasible,
while long-term results have to be demonstrated to establish its definitive role.
o Other controversies worth mentioning are the pros and cons of the use of prosthetic mesh repair
and the role of routine prophylactic fundoplication and gastropexy.
o The peculiarity of concomitant perforated duodenal ulcer of the current patient may be related to
his background history of bleeding gastric ulcer. The tight incarceration of the stomach and
transverse colon might have prevented gas and fluid content from leading from the ulcer perforation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Figure 2 and 1 picture in Figure 3 could be omitted
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
Reviewer's report
Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title:
emergency
1 25 October 2005 Version: Date:
Wing Tai T Siu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
This is an extremely uncommon case of perforated duodenal ulcer complicating a incarcerated
paraesophaegal hernia. • Background
o Should consider re-siting second paragraph to discussion section.
o The statement on the 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph (page 3, lines 20-21) should be re-phrase or re-write. Decompression of suspected strangulated paraesophageal hernia by naso-gastric tube
alone is not a safe clinical approach to postpone a life-threatening condition. Catastrophic
complications like uncontrolled bleeding, strangulation and perforation demand emergency surgical
management.
• Case presentation
o Clinical findings on presentation, post-operative management and clinical course of the patient
should be concisely written.
o Paraesophaegal hernia is characterized by herniation of gastric fundus alongside the distal
esophagus through the hiatus, while the gastroesophageal junction remains in a reasonably normal position. Large paraesophageal hernia may associate with organoaxial volvulus of stomach that
could lead to an “up-side down stomach” and intrathoracic herniation of transverse colon. Could the
authors clarify the operative / radiological findings for the evidence gastric volvulus.
o Size of the duodenal perforated should be mentioned. (page 5, line 21) o Why prolene is chosen for repair of duodenal perforation, as most surgeons favor repair with
absorbable sutures. (page 5, line 22)
o Presumably the spleen was inadvertently damaged at the time of operation (page 5, line 24). Was
it related to stretching the ligaments and vessels of the paraesophageal herniation?
o Full course of potent antibiotic and high-dose proton pump inhibitor infusion are generally not
recommended for prophylaxis. (page 6, lines 9-11)
• Conclusion o The section should rephrase as “Discussion” o The description on the mode of presentation, pros and cons of elective repair of asymptomatic
paresophageal hernia is informative to reader. However, the author should also mention that there is
no dispute for operative management of the present case with evidence of gastric outlet obstruction
and epigastric pain. o Controversy somehow exists in the selection of best approach for elective repair of
paraesophageal hernia. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has been shown to be feasible,
while long-term results have to be demonstrated to establish its definitive role.
o Other controversies worth mentioning are the pros and cons of the use of prosthetic mesh repair
and the role of routine prophylactic fundoplication and gastropexy.
o The peculiarity of concomitant perforated duodenal ulcer of the current patient may be related to
his background history of bleeding gastric ulcer. The tight incarceration of the stomach and
transverse colon might have prevented gas and fluid content from leading from the ulcer perforation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Figure 2 and 1 picture in Figure 3 could be omitted
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_64_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 5,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 8,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 9,
"total": 23
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.043478260869565216,
"example": 0.21739130434782608,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.043478260869565216,
"materials_and_methods": 0.13043478260869565,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.34782608695652173,
"results_and_discussion": 0.17391304347826086,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.391304347826087
}
| 1.347826
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title: \nemergency \n 1 25 October 2005 Version: Date: \n Wing Tai T Siu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nThis is an extremely uncommon case of perforated duodenal ulcer complicating a incarcerated \nparaesophaegal hernia. • Background \no Should consider re-siting second paragraph to discussion section. \no The statement on the 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph (page 3, lines 20-21) should be re-phrase or re-write. Decompression of suspected strangulated paraesophageal hernia by naso-gastric tube \nalone is not a safe clinical approach to postpone a life-threatening condition. Catastrophic \ncomplications like uncontrolled bleeding, strangulation and perforation demand emergency surgical \nmanagement. \n• Case presentation \no Clinical findings on presentation, post-operative management and clinical course of the patient \nshould be concisely written. \no Paraesophaegal hernia is characterized by herniation of gastric fundus alongside the distal \nesophagus through the hiatus, while the gastroesophageal junction remains in a reasonably normal position. Large paraesophageal hernia may associate with organoaxial volvulus of stomach that \ncould lead to an “up-side down stomach” and intrathoracic herniation of transverse colon. Could the \nauthors clarify the operative / radiological findings for the evidence gastric volvulus. \no Size of the duodenal perforated should be mentioned. (page 5, line 21) o Why prolene is chosen for repair of duodenal perforation, as most surgeons favor repair with \nabsorbable sutures. (page 5, line 22) \no Presumably the spleen was inadvertently damaged at the time of operation (page 5, line 24). Was \nit related to stretching the ligaments and vessels of the paraesophageal herniation? \no Full course of potent antibiotic and high-dose proton pump inhibitor infusion are generally not \nrecommended for prophylaxis. (page 6, lines 9-11) \n• Conclusion o The section should rephrase as “Discussion” o The description on the mode of presentation, pros and cons of elective repair of asymptomatic \nparesophageal hernia is informative to reader. However, the author should also mention that there is \nno dispute for operative management of the present case with evidence of gastric outlet obstruction \nand epigastric pain. o Controversy somehow exists in the selection of best approach for elective repair of \nparaesophageal hernia. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has been shown to be feasible, \nwhile long-term results have to be demonstrated to establish its definitive role. \no Other controversies worth mentioning are the pros and cons of the use of prosthetic mesh repair \nand the role of routine prophylactic fundoplication and gastropexy. \no The peculiarity of concomitant perforated duodenal ulcer of the current patient may be related to \nhis background history of bleeding gastric ulcer. The tight incarceration of the stomach and \ntransverse colon might have prevented gas and fluid content from leading from the ulcer perforation. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nFigure 2 and 1 picture in Figure 3 could be omitted \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-6-1
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title:
emergency
2 23 November 2005 Version: Date:
Wing Tai T Siu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This is an extremely uncommon case of perforated duodenal ulcer complicating a incarcerated
paraesophaegal hernia. • Background o Should consider re-siting second paragraph to discussion section.
o The statement on the 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph (page 3, lines 20-21) should be re-phrase or
re-write. Decompression of suspected strangulated paraesophageal hernia by naso-gastric tube
alone is not a safe clinical approach to postpone a life-threatening condition. Catastrophic complications like uncontrolled bleeding, strangulation and perforation demand emergency surgical
management.
• Case presentation o Clinical findings on presentation, post-operative management and clinical course of the patient
should be concisely written.
o Paraesophaegal hernia is characterized by herniation of gastric fundus alongside the distal
esophagus through the hiatus, while the gastroesophageal junction remains in a reasonably normal
position. Large paraesophageal hernia may associate with organoaxial volvulus of stomach that
could lead to an “up-side down stomach” and intrathoracic herniation of transverse colon. Could the
authors clarify the operative / radiological findings for the evidence of gastric volvulus.
o Size of the duodenal perforated should be mentioned. (page 5, line 21)
o Why prolene is chosen for repair of duodenal perforation, as most surgeons favor repair with absorbable sutures. (page 5, line 22)
o Presumably the spleen was inadvertently damaged at the time of operation (page 5, line 24). Was
it related to stretching the ligaments and vessels of the paraesophageal herniation?
o Full course of potent antibiotic and high-dose proton pump inhibitor infusion are generally not recommended for prophylaxis. (page 6, lines 9-11)
• Conclusion
o The section should rephrase as “Discussion” o The description on the mode of presentation, pros and cons of elective repair of asymptomatic
paresophageal hernia is informative to reader. However, the author should also mention that there is
no dispute for operative management of the present case with evidence of gastric outlet obstruction
and epigastric pain. o Controversy somehow exists in the selection of best approach for elective repair of
paraesophageal hernia. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has been shown to be feasible,
while long-term results have to be demonstrated to establish its definitive role.
o Other controversies worth mentioning are the pros and cons of the use of prosthetic mesh repair
and the role of routine prophylactic fundoplication and gastropexy. o The peculiarity of concomitant perforated duodenal ulcer of the current patient may be related to
his background history of bleeding gastric ulcer. The tight incarceration of the stomach and
transverse colon might have prevented gas and fluid content leaking from the ulcer perforation.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
Reviewer's report
Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title:
emergency
2 23 November 2005 Version: Date:
Wing Tai T Siu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This is an extremely uncommon case of perforated duodenal ulcer complicating a incarcerated
paraesophaegal hernia. • Background o Should consider re-siting second paragraph to discussion section.
o The statement on the 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph (page 3, lines 20-21) should be re-phrase or
re-write. Decompression of suspected strangulated paraesophageal hernia by naso-gastric tube
alone is not a safe clinical approach to postpone a life-threatening condition. Catastrophic complications like uncontrolled bleeding, strangulation and perforation demand emergency surgical
management.
• Case presentation o Clinical findings on presentation, post-operative management and clinical course of the patient
should be concisely written.
o Paraesophaegal hernia is characterized by herniation of gastric fundus alongside the distal
esophagus through the hiatus, while the gastroesophageal junction remains in a reasonably normal
position. Large paraesophageal hernia may associate with organoaxial volvulus of stomach that
could lead to an “up-side down stomach” and intrathoracic herniation of transverse colon. Could the
authors clarify the operative / radiological findings for the evidence of gastric volvulus.
o Size of the duodenal perforated should be mentioned. (page 5, line 21)
o Why prolene is chosen for repair of duodenal perforation, as most surgeons favor repair with absorbable sutures. (page 5, line 22)
o Presumably the spleen was inadvertently damaged at the time of operation (page 5, line 24). Was
it related to stretching the ligaments and vessels of the paraesophageal herniation?
o Full course of potent antibiotic and high-dose proton pump inhibitor infusion are generally not recommended for prophylaxis. (page 6, lines 9-11)
• Conclusion
o The section should rephrase as “Discussion” o The description on the mode of presentation, pros and cons of elective repair of asymptomatic
paresophageal hernia is informative to reader. However, the author should also mention that there is
no dispute for operative management of the present case with evidence of gastric outlet obstruction
and epigastric pain. o Controversy somehow exists in the selection of best approach for elective repair of
paraesophageal hernia. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has been shown to be feasible,
while long-term results have to be demonstrated to establish its definitive role.
o Other controversies worth mentioning are the pros and cons of the use of prosthetic mesh repair
and the role of routine prophylactic fundoplication and gastropexy. o The peculiarity of concomitant perforated duodenal ulcer of the current patient may be related to
his background history of bleeding gastric ulcer. The tight incarceration of the stomach and
transverse colon might have prevented gas and fluid content leaking from the ulcer perforation.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_64_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 7,
"results_and_discussion": 5,
"suggestion_and_solution": 9,
"total": 23
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.043478260869565216,
"example": 0.17391304347826086,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.08695652173913043,
"materials_and_methods": 0.13043478260869565,
"praise": 0.043478260869565216,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.30434782608695654,
"results_and_discussion": 0.21739130434782608,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.391304347826087
}
| 1.391304
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Perforated peptic duodenal ulcer in a paraesophageal hernia - a case report of a rare surgical Title: \nemergency \n 2 23 November 2005 Version: Date: \n Wing Tai T Siu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThis is an extremely uncommon case of perforated duodenal ulcer complicating a incarcerated \nparaesophaegal hernia. • Background o Should consider re-siting second paragraph to discussion section. \no The statement on the 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph (page 3, lines 20-21) should be re-phrase or \nre-write. Decompression of suspected strangulated paraesophageal hernia by naso-gastric tube \nalone is not a safe clinical approach to postpone a life-threatening condition. Catastrophic complications like uncontrolled bleeding, strangulation and perforation demand emergency surgical \nmanagement. \n• Case presentation o Clinical findings on presentation, post-operative management and clinical course of the patient \nshould be concisely written. \no Paraesophaegal hernia is characterized by herniation of gastric fundus alongside the distal \nesophagus through the hiatus, while the gastroesophageal junction remains in a reasonably normal \nposition. Large paraesophageal hernia may associate with organoaxial volvulus of stomach that \ncould lead to an “up-side down stomach” and intrathoracic herniation of transverse colon. Could the \nauthors clarify the operative / radiological findings for the evidence of gastric volvulus. \no Size of the duodenal perforated should be mentioned. (page 5, line 21) \no Why prolene is chosen for repair of duodenal perforation, as most surgeons favor repair with absorbable sutures. (page 5, line 22) \no Presumably the spleen was inadvertently damaged at the time of operation (page 5, line 24). Was \nit related to stretching the ligaments and vessels of the paraesophageal herniation? \no Full course of potent antibiotic and high-dose proton pump inhibitor infusion are generally not recommended for prophylaxis. (page 6, lines 9-11) \n• Conclusion \no The section should rephrase as “Discussion” o The description on the mode of presentation, pros and cons of elective repair of asymptomatic \nparesophageal hernia is informative to reader. However, the author should also mention that there is \nno dispute for operative management of the present case with evidence of gastric outlet obstruction \nand epigastric pain. o Controversy somehow exists in the selection of best approach for elective repair of \nparaesophageal hernia. Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair has been shown to be feasible, \nwhile long-term results have to be demonstrated to establish its definitive role. \no Other controversies worth mentioning are the pros and cons of the use of prosthetic mesh repair \nand the role of routine prophylactic fundoplication and gastropexy. o The peculiarity of concomitant perforated duodenal ulcer of the current patient may be related to \nhis background history of bleeding gastric ulcer. The tight incarceration of the stomach and \ntransverse colon might have prevented gas and fluid content leaking from the ulcer perforation. \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,006
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-23
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
1 8 August 2005 Version: Date:
Colin J McMahon Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
I would strongly suggest removing tables 1 and 2. They are unneccessary.
Eight authors on a case report is excessive. This needs to be curtailed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Main case report
1. Second last paragraph: correct the spelling of 'posterior leaflet' (posteriol)
2. Last paragraph: change to '.....one NYHA class....'
3. 'Coronary angiography demonstrated a dilated right coronary artery to arise from the appropriate
sinus of Valsalva but the left coronary artery could not be identified.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
1 8 August 2005 Version: Date:
Colin J McMahon Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
I would strongly suggest removing tables 1 and 2. They are unneccessary.
Eight authors on a case report is excessive. This needs to be curtailed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Main case report
1. Second last paragraph: correct the spelling of 'posterior leaflet' (posteriol)
2. Last paragraph: change to '.....one NYHA class....'
3. 'Coronary angiography demonstrated a dilated right coronary artery to arise from the appropriate
sinus of Valsalva but the left coronary artery could not be identified.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_63_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 5,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 12
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.16666666666666666,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4166666666666667,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5833333333333334
}
| 1.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title: \nreport and review of the literature. \n 1 8 August 2005 Version: Date: \n Colin J McMahon Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nI would strongly suggest removing tables 1 and 2. They are unneccessary. \nEight authors on a case report is excessive. This needs to be curtailed. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nMain case report \n1. Second last paragraph: correct the spelling of 'posterior leaflet' (posteriol) \n2. Last paragraph: change to '.....one NYHA class....' \n3. 'Coronary angiography demonstrated a dilated right coronary artery to arise from the appropriate \nsinus of Valsalva but the left coronary artery could not be identified.' \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-23
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
1 12 September 2005 Version: Date:
Rainer Zotz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting and concise report on the rare Bland-White-Garland syndrome with a
review of the literature which merits publication. One should emphasize though the role or TEE which in this case allowed the direct visualization of the anomalous origin of the LCA. Was it possible to evaluate the direction of flow in this vessel?
Also, the possibility of atherosclerosis of the collateral circulation should be mentioned as a reason
why this patient at the age of 45 years became symptomatic.
The literature may be shortened and figure 3 omitted.
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
Minor Essential Revisions: The English language should be improved (especially at the end of the
case report and in the discussion (e.g. "posteriol leaflet".
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details
below.
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
1 12 September 2005 Version: Date:
Rainer Zotz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This is a very interesting and concise report on the rare Bland-White-Garland syndrome with a
review of the literature which merits publication. One should emphasize though the role or TEE which in this case allowed the direct visualization of the anomalous origin of the LCA. Was it possible to evaluate the direction of flow in this vessel?
Also, the possibility of atherosclerosis of the collateral circulation should be mentioned as a reason
why this patient at the age of 45 years became symptomatic.
The literature may be shortened and figure 3 omitted.
Major Compulsory Revisions: None
Minor Essential Revisions: The English language should be improved (especially at the end of the
case report and in the discussion (e.g. "posteriol leaflet".
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details
below.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_63_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 6,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 12
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.16666666666666666,
"materials_and_methods": 0.16666666666666666,
"praise": 0.08333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0.08333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5833333333333334
}
| 1.583333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title: \nreport and review of the literature. \n 1 12 September 2005 Version: Date: \n Rainer Zotz Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThis is a very interesting and concise report on the rare Bland-White-Garland syndrome with a \nreview of the literature which merits publication. One should emphasize though the role or TEE which in this case allowed the direct visualization of the anomalous origin of the LCA. Was it possible to evaluate the direction of flow in this vessel? \nAlso, the possibility of atherosclerosis of the collateral circulation should be mentioned as a reason \nwhy this patient at the age of 45 years became symptomatic. \nThe literature may be shortened and figure 3 omitted. \nMajor Compulsory Revisions: None \nMinor Essential Revisions: The English language should be improved (especially at the end of the \ncase report and in the discussion (e.g. \"posteriol leaflet\". \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details \nbelow. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-23
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
1 4 October 2005 Version: Date:
William J Nicholson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an interesting case, particularly the observation of the presence of systemic flow to the left coronary artery during bypass surgery. It would have been nice to show images of the coronary anatomy from the catheterization
demonstrating the anatomy. The text needs to undergo some grammatical editing.
I am not sure that the intra-operative image and the echo demonstrating mitral
regurgitation add value to the case presentation. Additionally the tables could be cut down to just demonstrate the step-up in saturation and the right heart
results could likely be incorporated into the text. Overall, this is a good
review of the BWG with a case that is lacking some essential images for the presentation.
The article could be accepted with some substantial grammatical corrections and hopefully some
added figures demonstrating the anatomy found.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Much of the literature does not quote patients surviving to a mean age of 35,
but the majority die in infancy. There are quite a few run-on sentences and there is a need for some grammatical editing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
1 4 October 2005 Version: Date:
William J Nicholson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an interesting case, particularly the observation of the presence of systemic flow to the left coronary artery during bypass surgery. It would have been nice to show images of the coronary anatomy from the catheterization
demonstrating the anatomy. The text needs to undergo some grammatical editing.
I am not sure that the intra-operative image and the echo demonstrating mitral
regurgitation add value to the case presentation. Additionally the tables could be cut down to just demonstrate the step-up in saturation and the right heart
results could likely be incorporated into the text. Overall, this is a good
review of the BWG with a case that is lacking some essential images for the presentation.
The article could be accepted with some substantial grammatical corrections and hopefully some
added figures demonstrating the anatomy found.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Much of the literature does not quote patients surviving to a mean age of 35,
but the majority die in infancy. There are quite a few run-on sentences and there is a need for some grammatical editing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_63_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 7,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 12
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.16666666666666666,
"example": 0.16666666666666666,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.08333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.25,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5833333333333334,
"results_and_discussion": 0.08333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5833333333333334
}
| 1.916667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title: \nreport and review of the literature. \n 1 4 October 2005 Version: Date: \n William J Nicholson Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is an interesting case, particularly the observation of the presence of systemic flow to the left coronary artery during bypass surgery. It would have been nice to show images of the coronary anatomy from the catheterization \ndemonstrating the anatomy. The text needs to undergo some grammatical editing. \nI am not sure that the intra-operative image and the echo demonstrating mitral \nregurgitation add value to the case presentation. Additionally the tables could be cut down to just demonstrate the step-up in saturation and the right heart \nresults could likely be incorporated into the text. Overall, this is a good \nreview of the BWG with a case that is lacking some essential images for the presentation. \nThe article could be accepted with some substantial grammatical corrections and hopefully some \nadded figures demonstrating the anatomy found. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nMuch of the literature does not quote patients surviving to a mean age of 35, \nbut the majority die in infancy. There are quite a few run-on sentences and there is a need for some grammatical editing. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-23
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
2 1 November 2005 Version: Date:
William J Nicholson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General - Improved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title:
report and review of the literature.
2 1 November 2005 Version: Date:
William J Nicholson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General - Improved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_63_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4
}
| 1.2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A long-term survivor of Bland-White-Garland syndrome with systemic collateral supply. A case Title: \nreport and review of the literature. \n 2 1 November 2005 Version: Date: \n William J Nicholson Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral - Improved. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-22
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Missing effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia Title:
1 31 July 2005 Version: Date:
Martijn van Griensven Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Krones et al. investigate the effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia. They have
used zinc treatment in an acute endotoxemia model in swine. The hypothesis is interesting,
however, there are some problems with the manuscript. The authors should not call their endotoxemia model a sepsis model (Abstract: LPS-induced sepsis). Endotoxemia is not sepsis. Remick et al. described some nice differences between
endotoxemia and a sepsis model (cecal ligation and puncture). According to the definitions of the
ACCP/SCCM conference sepsis is SIRS with observed or expected infection (Bone et al. 1992).
Septicemia should therefore also be omitted from the key words.
The background is too short. The first paragraph deals with the concept of CARS, the second only
states zinc has been tested in models and could inverse the CARS state, the third paragraph is a
summary what has been done. I would like to see more background on zinc. Especially, as group has published several papers on zinc in acute endotoxemia and in in vitro models. From this, the
authors should explain, why they test zinc now in recurrent endotoxemia.
In the materials and methods, the authors state that fluid balance was maintained by Ringer. What
goals were to be achieved? Did the authors measures central venous pressure? Why was the zinc
administered over a period of 2 hours? Why did the authors choose to treat before the last LPS
infusion? Could it be that the zinc-bis-(DL-hydrogenaspartate) also could have an effect because of
the aspartate component? It is known that several amino acids exert protective effects? The control
group does not have this component. The authors should state at which time points measurements
were made. Stating at defined time points is not sufficient.
In the results section, the authors state that zinc treatment tended to improve pulmonary function.
They refer to figure 1A-F. These represent several parameters. Only some of them are sometimes
significantly different. What parameters were taken into account in order to state that “pulmonary
function improved”? In the abstract, the authors say these significances are not reliable. How should
we then interpret these data at all? When did the arterial oxygen saturation reach significance?
What is meant by “systemic arterial blood pressure”? Do the authors mean Mean Arterial Pressure?
The morphology data revealed increased values after zinc treatment for alveolar width and paracentral liver necrosis. Was this significant (especially the liver)? Isn’t zinc detrimental in that respect looking at organ damage?
The authors dicuss that the lack of effect could not be due to dosage. The dosage finding studies,
however, were performed in acute endotoxemia. Recurrent endotoxemia has quite another kinetic. Furthermore, zinc was administered after two applications of LPS and before the last one. Thus, dosage certainly could be an issue in my opinion. The authors state that it could derive from a too
short registration time. On the other hand they say that observations over 18 hours are insufficient.
They should clarify this issue. The conclusion that zinc administration is feasible was already known from the other endotoxemia studies and is thus not new. On page 10, the authors contradict themselves in stating “underline the lack of pulmonary protection supposed above”: they had stated
that pulmonary function improved. However, I agree that this improvement is only with some
parameters on some time points and should be interpreted carefully. The authors state in the discussion that the observed an “increase of TNF after sole infusion of zinc”: in which group was this tested and what were the results? The dosage of zinc could also play a role in this model of
recurrent endotoxemia regarding the expression of cytokines. The authors did not show that
cytokines increased at first and then decreased. The measurements were first at baseline and then
at 600 min. In the graphs, the authors should change the X-axes. The simulate linearity. However,
sometimes 15 minutes are between samples sometimes 60 minutes. The authors state that “the
infusion of LPS in the saline group additionally induced no measurable decrease in cytokine liberation”. As there seems to be IL-6 secretion (600 min) after the first two LPS administrations, it has to be doubted if this is a good model for CARS as no decreases are seen.
In this model, zinc doesn’t seem to exert any effect. The authors should be careful with there
statement regarding pulmonary function. They should discuss more on the differences between acute and recurrent endotoxemia. Especially, as they have seen effects of zinc in their acute endotoxemia model.
Minor points:
p.2 the chronic human sepsis = chronic human sepsis
p.2 depressed cytokine liberation is only partly restored: was it really depressed?
p.3 anti-TNF is no cytokine. Mostly, soluble TNF receptors play a role rather than anti-TNF
antibodies p.8 338.6 = 338.6 g p.9 Applicated as a prophylaxis = applied/administered as a prophylaxis
p.9 recurrent endotoxemia in vivo imitating is not: imitating what?
p.10 In conclusion, they could approve neither = In conclusion, they could prove neither p.11 Though the the rate = Though the rate p.11 of cause = of course
p.11 can not = cannot
p.17 always use initials or always use full first names
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Missing effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia Title:
1 31 July 2005 Version: Date:
Martijn van Griensven Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Krones et al. investigate the effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia. They have
used zinc treatment in an acute endotoxemia model in swine. The hypothesis is interesting,
however, there are some problems with the manuscript. The authors should not call their endotoxemia model a sepsis model (Abstract: LPS-induced sepsis). Endotoxemia is not sepsis. Remick et al. described some nice differences between
endotoxemia and a sepsis model (cecal ligation and puncture). According to the definitions of the
ACCP/SCCM conference sepsis is SIRS with observed or expected infection (Bone et al. 1992).
Septicemia should therefore also be omitted from the key words.
The background is too short. The first paragraph deals with the concept of CARS, the second only
states zinc has been tested in models and could inverse the CARS state, the third paragraph is a
summary what has been done. I would like to see more background on zinc. Especially, as group has published several papers on zinc in acute endotoxemia and in in vitro models. From this, the
authors should explain, why they test zinc now in recurrent endotoxemia.
In the materials and methods, the authors state that fluid balance was maintained by Ringer. What
goals were to be achieved? Did the authors measures central venous pressure? Why was the zinc
administered over a period of 2 hours? Why did the authors choose to treat before the last LPS
infusion? Could it be that the zinc-bis-(DL-hydrogenaspartate) also could have an effect because of
the aspartate component? It is known that several amino acids exert protective effects? The control
group does not have this component. The authors should state at which time points measurements
were made. Stating at defined time points is not sufficient.
In the results section, the authors state that zinc treatment tended to improve pulmonary function.
They refer to figure 1A-F. These represent several parameters. Only some of them are sometimes
significantly different. What parameters were taken into account in order to state that “pulmonary
function improved”? In the abstract, the authors say these significances are not reliable. How should
we then interpret these data at all? When did the arterial oxygen saturation reach significance?
What is meant by “systemic arterial blood pressure”? Do the authors mean Mean Arterial Pressure?
The morphology data revealed increased values after zinc treatment for alveolar width and paracentral liver necrosis. Was this significant (especially the liver)? Isn’t zinc detrimental in that respect looking at organ damage?
The authors dicuss that the lack of effect could not be due to dosage. The dosage finding studies,
however, were performed in acute endotoxemia. Recurrent endotoxemia has quite another kinetic. Furthermore, zinc was administered after two applications of LPS and before the last one. Thus, dosage certainly could be an issue in my opinion. The authors state that it could derive from a too
short registration time. On the other hand they say that observations over 18 hours are insufficient.
They should clarify this issue. The conclusion that zinc administration is feasible was already known from the other endotoxemia studies and is thus not new. On page 10, the authors contradict themselves in stating “underline the lack of pulmonary protection supposed above”: they had stated
that pulmonary function improved. However, I agree that this improvement is only with some
parameters on some time points and should be interpreted carefully. The authors state in the discussion that the observed an “increase of TNF after sole infusion of zinc”: in which group was this tested and what were the results? The dosage of zinc could also play a role in this model of
recurrent endotoxemia regarding the expression of cytokines. The authors did not show that
cytokines increased at first and then decreased. The measurements were first at baseline and then
at 600 min. In the graphs, the authors should change the X-axes. The simulate linearity. However,
sometimes 15 minutes are between samples sometimes 60 minutes. The authors state that “the
infusion of LPS in the saline group additionally induced no measurable decrease in cytokine liberation”. As there seems to be IL-6 secretion (600 min) after the first two LPS administrations, it has to be doubted if this is a good model for CARS as no decreases are seen.
In this model, zinc doesn’t seem to exert any effect. The authors should be careful with there
statement regarding pulmonary function. They should discuss more on the differences between acute and recurrent endotoxemia. Especially, as they have seen effects of zinc in their acute endotoxemia model.
Minor points:
p.2 the chronic human sepsis = chronic human sepsis
p.2 depressed cytokine liberation is only partly restored: was it really depressed?
p.3 anti-TNF is no cytokine. Mostly, soluble TNF receptors play a role rather than anti-TNF
antibodies p.8 338.6 = 338.6 g p.9 Applicated as a prophylaxis = applied/administered as a prophylaxis
p.9 recurrent endotoxemia in vivo imitating is not: imitating what?
p.10 In conclusion, they could approve neither = In conclusion, they could prove neither p.11 Though the the rate = Though the rate p.11 of cause = of course
p.11 can not = cannot
p.17 always use initials or always use full first names
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_62_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 10,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 34,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 11,
"results_and_discussion": 9,
"suggestion_and_solution": 14,
"total": 68
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.14705882352941177,
"example": 0.029411764705882353,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.029411764705882353,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.04411764705882353,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.16176470588235295,
"results_and_discussion": 0.1323529411764706,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.20588235294117646
}
| 1.25
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Missing effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia Title: \n 1 31 July 2005 Version: Date: \n Martijn van Griensven Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nKrones et al. investigate the effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia. They have \nused zinc treatment in an acute endotoxemia model in swine. The hypothesis is interesting, \nhowever, there are some problems with the manuscript. The authors should not call their endotoxemia model a sepsis model (Abstract: LPS-induced sepsis). Endotoxemia is not sepsis. Remick et al. described some nice differences between \nendotoxemia and a sepsis model (cecal ligation and puncture). According to the definitions of the \nACCP/SCCM conference sepsis is SIRS with observed or expected infection (Bone et al. 1992). \nSepticemia should therefore also be omitted from the key words. \nThe background is too short. The first paragraph deals with the concept of CARS, the second only \nstates zinc has been tested in models and could inverse the CARS state, the third paragraph is a \nsummary what has been done. I would like to see more background on zinc. Especially, as group has published several papers on zinc in acute endotoxemia and in in vitro models. From this, the \nauthors should explain, why they test zinc now in recurrent endotoxemia. \nIn the materials and methods, the authors state that fluid balance was maintained by Ringer. What \ngoals were to be achieved? Did the authors measures central venous pressure? Why was the zinc \nadministered over a period of 2 hours? Why did the authors choose to treat before the last LPS \ninfusion? Could it be that the zinc-bis-(DL-hydrogenaspartate) also could have an effect because of \nthe aspartate component? It is known that several amino acids exert protective effects? The control \ngroup does not have this component. The authors should state at which time points measurements \nwere made. Stating at defined time points is not sufficient. \nIn the results section, the authors state that zinc treatment tended to improve pulmonary function. \nThey refer to figure 1A-F. These represent several parameters. Only some of them are sometimes \nsignificantly different. What parameters were taken into account in order to state that “pulmonary \nfunction improved”? In the abstract, the authors say these significances are not reliable. How should \nwe then interpret these data at all? When did the arterial oxygen saturation reach significance? \nWhat is meant by “systemic arterial blood pressure”? Do the authors mean Mean Arterial Pressure? \nThe morphology data revealed increased values after zinc treatment for alveolar width and paracentral liver necrosis. Was this significant (especially the liver)? Isn’t zinc detrimental in that respect looking at organ damage? \nThe authors dicuss that the lack of effect could not be due to dosage. The dosage finding studies, \nhowever, were performed in acute endotoxemia. Recurrent endotoxemia has quite another kinetic. Furthermore, zinc was administered after two applications of LPS and before the last one. Thus, dosage certainly could be an issue in my opinion. The authors state that it could derive from a too \nshort registration time. On the other hand they say that observations over 18 hours are insufficient. \nThey should clarify this issue. The conclusion that zinc administration is feasible was already known from the other endotoxemia studies and is thus not new. On page 10, the authors contradict themselves in stating “underline the lack of pulmonary protection supposed above”: they had stated \nthat pulmonary function improved. However, I agree that this improvement is only with some \nparameters on some time points and should be interpreted carefully. The authors state in the discussion that the observed an “increase of TNF after sole infusion of zinc”: in which group was this tested and what were the results? The dosage of zinc could also play a role in this model of \nrecurrent endotoxemia regarding the expression of cytokines. The authors did not show that \ncytokines increased at first and then decreased. The measurements were first at baseline and then \nat 600 min. In the graphs, the authors should change the X-axes. The simulate linearity. However, \nsometimes 15 minutes are between samples sometimes 60 minutes. The authors state that “the \ninfusion of LPS in the saline group additionally induced no measurable decrease in cytokine liberation”. As there seems to be IL-6 secretion (600 min) after the first two LPS administrations, it has to be doubted if this is a good model for CARS as no decreases are seen. \nIn this model, zinc doesn’t seem to exert any effect. The authors should be careful with there \nstatement regarding pulmonary function. They should discuss more on the differences between acute and recurrent endotoxemia. Especially, as they have seen effects of zinc in their acute endotoxemia model. \nMinor points: \np.2 the chronic human sepsis = chronic human sepsis \np.2 depressed cytokine liberation is only partly restored: was it really depressed? \np.3 anti-TNF is no cytokine. Mostly, soluble TNF receptors play a role rather than anti-TNF \nantibodies p.8 338.6 = 338.6 g p.9 Applicated as a prophylaxis = applied/administered as a prophylaxis \np.9 recurrent endotoxemia in vivo imitating is not: imitating what? \np.10 In conclusion, they could approve neither = In conclusion, they could prove neither p.11 Though the the rate = Though the rate p.11 of cause = of course \np.11 can not = cannot \np.17 always use initials or always use full first names \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-22
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Missing effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia Title:
2 19 September 2005 Version: Date:
Martijn van Griensven Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
all concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Missing effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia Title:
2 19 September 2005 Version: Date:
Martijn van Griensven Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
all concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_62_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.5,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Missing effects of zinc in a porcine model of recurrent endotoxemia Title: \n 2 19 September 2005 Version: Date: \n Martijn van Griensven Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nall concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-21
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Do changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature relate to the incidence of aortic Title:
dissection?
1 5 January 2005 Version: Date:
Matthew Bown Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an interesting paper but needs further work, mainly in the area of the statistical analyses
performed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
The authors need to state how many patients were admitted with aortic dissections over the study
period who did not undergo surgery (the 23 patients in the study were all operated upon). These are an important part of the incidence of the condition. If these are not included the paper should be
titled "... the incidence of operations for aortic dissection?"
The authors have used mean monthly data centred on the time of the operation. The full month prior
to the operation would give a better indication of the prevailing atmospheric conditions. The
atmospheric conditions after the time of dissection should have no effect on the onset of dissection.
Variability of atmospheric pressure is a meterologically defined measure of the rate of change of
pressure and this should be examined (variability is the daily pressure range divided by the daily
mean, multiplied by standard atmospheric pressure (1013.25 mb))
An indicator of what measures (if any) were used to control for multiple hypothesis testing should be
given and this weakness acknowledged in the discussion.
The reasons for choosing to compare the mean 24 and 48 hour indicators with only the mean
monthly indicators should be given. It may be that a sudden change in the indicator being examined between 48 and 24 hours prior to dissection may be related to the onset of dissection and these
should be compared.
Table 1 is redundant as these are obvious from tables 2 and 3. Tables 2 and 3 should give an
indication of the number of observations made for each comparison. The Wilcoxon column in table 2
is redundant.
No statistical test has been performed on the data presented in figure 1 to confirm that there was no
statistical variation in monthly incidence. This shoudl be included (Chi-squared).
In both the abstract and discussion the authors state findings as if they are positive that they have
not demonstrated to be significant by their own definintion (page 2, lines 15 and 18), (page 10, lines 11 and 15). These should be removed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The numbered list in the methods should be tabulated.
P-values should be quoted to less decimal places (2 or 3 depending on the editors wishes)
The Y-axis on figure 1 should have the markers for each 0.5 of a dissection removed as these are
meaningless.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
It may be more meaningful to compare variation in atmospheric pressure/temperature close to the
time of dissection with the mean values for the whole period of the study.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Do changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature relate to the incidence of aortic Title:
dissection?
1 5 January 2005 Version: Date:
Matthew Bown Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an interesting paper but needs further work, mainly in the area of the statistical analyses
performed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
The authors need to state how many patients were admitted with aortic dissections over the study
period who did not undergo surgery (the 23 patients in the study were all operated upon). These are an important part of the incidence of the condition. If these are not included the paper should be
titled "... the incidence of operations for aortic dissection?"
The authors have used mean monthly data centred on the time of the operation. The full month prior
to the operation would give a better indication of the prevailing atmospheric conditions. The
atmospheric conditions after the time of dissection should have no effect on the onset of dissection.
Variability of atmospheric pressure is a meterologically defined measure of the rate of change of
pressure and this should be examined (variability is the daily pressure range divided by the daily
mean, multiplied by standard atmospheric pressure (1013.25 mb))
An indicator of what measures (if any) were used to control for multiple hypothesis testing should be
given and this weakness acknowledged in the discussion.
The reasons for choosing to compare the mean 24 and 48 hour indicators with only the mean
monthly indicators should be given. It may be that a sudden change in the indicator being examined between 48 and 24 hours prior to dissection may be related to the onset of dissection and these
should be compared.
Table 1 is redundant as these are obvious from tables 2 and 3. Tables 2 and 3 should give an
indication of the number of observations made for each comparison. The Wilcoxon column in table 2
is redundant.
No statistical test has been performed on the data presented in figure 1 to confirm that there was no
statistical variation in monthly incidence. This shoudl be included (Chi-squared).
In both the abstract and discussion the authors state findings as if they are positive that they have
not demonstrated to be significant by their own definintion (page 2, lines 15 and 18), (page 10, lines 11 and 15). These should be removed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The numbered list in the methods should be tabulated.
P-values should be quoted to less decimal places (2 or 3 depending on the editors wishes)
The Y-axis on figure 1 should have the markers for each 0.5 of a dissection removed as these are
meaningless.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
It may be more meaningful to compare variation in atmospheric pressure/temperature close to the
time of dissection with the mean values for the whole period of the study.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_61_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 6,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 10,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 11,
"results_and_discussion": 5,
"suggestion_and_solution": 14,
"total": 23
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.13043478260869565,
"example": 0.2608695652173913,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.043478260869565216,
"materials_and_methods": 0.43478260869565216,
"praise": 0.08695652173913043,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4782608695652174,
"results_and_discussion": 0.21739130434782608,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6086956521739131
}
| 2.26087
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Do changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature relate to the incidence of aortic Title: \ndissection? \n 1 5 January 2005 Version: Date: \n Matthew Bown Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is an interesting paper but needs further work, mainly in the area of the statistical analyses \nperformed. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nThe authors need to state how many patients were admitted with aortic dissections over the study \nperiod who did not undergo surgery (the 23 patients in the study were all operated upon). These are an important part of the incidence of the condition. If these are not included the paper should be \ntitled \"... the incidence of operations for aortic dissection?\" \nThe authors have used mean monthly data centred on the time of the operation. The full month prior \nto the operation would give a better indication of the prevailing atmospheric conditions. The \natmospheric conditions after the time of dissection should have no effect on the onset of dissection. \nVariability of atmospheric pressure is a meterologically defined measure of the rate of change of \npressure and this should be examined (variability is the daily pressure range divided by the daily \nmean, multiplied by standard atmospheric pressure (1013.25 mb)) \nAn indicator of what measures (if any) were used to control for multiple hypothesis testing should be \ngiven and this weakness acknowledged in the discussion. \nThe reasons for choosing to compare the mean 24 and 48 hour indicators with only the mean \nmonthly indicators should be given. It may be that a sudden change in the indicator being examined between 48 and 24 hours prior to dissection may be related to the onset of dissection and these \nshould be compared. \nTable 1 is redundant as these are obvious from tables 2 and 3. Tables 2 and 3 should give an \nindication of the number of observations made for each comparison. The Wilcoxon column in table 2 \nis redundant. \nNo statistical test has been performed on the data presented in figure 1 to confirm that there was no \nstatistical variation in monthly incidence. This shoudl be included (Chi-squared). \nIn both the abstract and discussion the authors state findings as if they are positive that they have \nnot demonstrated to be significant by their own definintion (page 2, lines 15 and 18), (page 10, lines 11 and 15). These should be removed. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThe numbered list in the methods should be tabulated. \nP-values should be quoted to less decimal places (2 or 3 depending on the editors wishes) \nThe Y-axis on figure 1 should have the markers for each 0.5 of a dissection removed as these are \nmeaningless. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nIt may be more meaningful to compare variation in atmospheric pressure/temperature close to the \ntime of dissection with the mean values for the whole period of the study. \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-21
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Do changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature relate to the incidence of aortic Title:
dissection?
1 6 January 2005 Version: Date:
Mehmet Kurtoglu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Dear Pritpal S Tamber It is an interesting well designed clinical study. The climate and aortic rupture relation was written
many times in the literature but the seasonal effects of aortic dissection is analyzed for the first time.
This is the originality of this paper. Although there is no obvious evidence and explanation of this
high pressure and dissection statistical evident relationship, it has been as a fact. If authors looked up for the relevant literature they would see my review of aortic ruptures: Kurtoglu M, Yanar H, Aksoy M, et al. Seasonality in the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm
ruptures: a review of eight years.
Ulus Travma Derg. 2004 Jan;10(1):39-41. I wish they could also read and refer this study. In summary since it is original and well designed it can be published although tere is no strong
message for the reader.
Yours sincerely Mehmet Kurtoglu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
Do changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature relate to the incidence of aortic Title:
dissection?
1 6 January 2005 Version: Date:
Mehmet Kurtoglu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Dear Pritpal S Tamber It is an interesting well designed clinical study. The climate and aortic rupture relation was written
many times in the literature but the seasonal effects of aortic dissection is analyzed for the first time.
This is the originality of this paper. Although there is no obvious evidence and explanation of this
high pressure and dissection statistical evident relationship, it has been as a fact. If authors looked up for the relevant literature they would see my review of aortic ruptures: Kurtoglu M, Yanar H, Aksoy M, et al. Seasonality in the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm
ruptures: a review of eight years.
Ulus Travma Derg. 2004 Jan;10(1):39-41. I wish they could also read and refer this study. In summary since it is original and well designed it can be published although tere is no strong
message for the reader.
Yours sincerely Mehmet Kurtoglu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_61_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 12
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.16666666666666666,
"example": 0.08333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.08333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.16666666666666666,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25,
"results_and_discussion": 0.08333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.16666666666666666
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Do changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature relate to the incidence of aortic Title: \ndissection? \n 1 6 January 2005 Version: Date: \n Mehmet Kurtoglu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nDear Pritpal S Tamber It is an interesting well designed clinical study. The climate and aortic rupture relation was written \nmany times in the literature but the seasonal effects of aortic dissection is analyzed for the first time. \nThis is the originality of this paper. Although there is no obvious evidence and explanation of this \nhigh pressure and dissection statistical evident relationship, it has been as a fact. If authors looked up for the relevant literature they would see my review of aortic ruptures: Kurtoglu M, Yanar H, Aksoy M, et al. Seasonality in the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm \nruptures: a review of eight years. \nUlus Travma Derg. 2004 Jan;10(1):39-41. I wish they could also read and refer this study. In summary since it is original and well designed it can be published although tere is no strong \nmessage for the reader. \nYours sincerely Mehmet Kurtoglu \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-21
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title:
2 10 March 2005 Version: Date:
Matthew Bown Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
No comments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title:
2 10 March 2005 Version: Date:
Matthew Bown Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
No comments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_61_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 0.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title: \n 2 10 March 2005 Version: Date: \n Matthew Bown Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nNo comments \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-21
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title:
2 17 June 2005 Version: Date:
John Ludbrook Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors' conclusions in their Abstract and their Discussion are entirely dependent on a p value
of 0.022 in Table 2. But, in this Table, they are testing 6 simultaneous hypotheses. This demands an
adjustment to control the familywise Type I error-rate. When I applied the Ryan-Holm stepdown
Bonferroni adjustment, p = 0.022 became p = 0.132 - not statistically significant. This means that
their inference about standard deviations is not sustainable.
In short, they have failed to demonstrate any 'significant' relationship between variations of
atmospheric pressure and surgically-treated aortic dissecting aneurysm.
I don't see how this MS can be accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title:
2 17 June 2005 Version: Date:
John Ludbrook Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors' conclusions in their Abstract and their Discussion are entirely dependent on a p value
of 0.022 in Table 2. But, in this Table, they are testing 6 simultaneous hypotheses. This demands an
adjustment to control the familywise Type I error-rate. When I applied the Ryan-Holm stepdown
Bonferroni adjustment, p = 0.022 became p = 0.132 - not statistically significant. This means that
their inference about standard deviations is not sustainable.
In short, they have failed to demonstrate any 'significant' relationship between variations of
atmospheric pressure and surgically-treated aortic dissecting aneurysm.
I don't see how this MS can be accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_61_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 9
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.3333333333333333,
"example": 0.1111111111111111,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2222222222222222,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.1111111111111111
}
| 1.111111
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title: \n 2 17 June 2005 Version: Date: \n John Ludbrook Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors' conclusions in their Abstract and their Discussion are entirely dependent on a p value \nof 0.022 in Table 2. But, in this Table, they are testing 6 simultaneous hypotheses. This demands an \nadjustment to control the familywise Type I error-rate. When I applied the Ryan-Holm stepdown \nBonferroni adjustment, p = 0.022 became p = 0.132 - not statistically significant. This means that \ntheir inference about standard deviations is not sustainable. \nIn short, they have failed to demonstrate any 'significant' relationship between variations of \natmospheric pressure and surgically-treated aortic dissecting aneurysm. \nI don't see how this MS can be accepted. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-21
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title:
3 3 September 2005 Version: Date:
John Ludbrook Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Congratulations. You have met all my objections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title:
3 3 September 2005 Version: Date:
John Ludbrook Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Congratulations. You have met all my objections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_61_ReviewerReport_V3_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.2
}
| 1.2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Is there a relationship between weather conditions and aortic dissection? Title: \n 3 3 September 2005 Version: Date: \n John Ludbrook Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nCongratulations. You have met all my objections. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-20
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Repair of high Rectovaginal fistula: Report of a case Dr. S. Senthil kumaran: Title:
[email protected] Dr. C. Palanivelu: [email protected] Dr. Alfie J Kavalakat:
[email protected] Dr. R. Parthasarathi: [email protected] Dr. Neelayathatchi [email protected] Department of advanced laparoscopic and gastrointestinal surgery GEM Hospital Coimbatore-641045 India Corresponding author: C. Palanivelu, Mch, FRCS(Hon), FACS
GEM hospital, Department of advanced laparoscopic surgery Coimbatore-641045 India. Phone No.
+91-0422-2324105 Fax No. +91-0422-2320879 Key words: Laparoscopy, Rectovaginal fistula
2 29 June 2005 Version: Date:
Steven Wexner Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct):
The authors are to be complimented on describing their results with this novel technique.
1)It would be useful to know which tests were performed at the 6- month follow-up to verify success
of RVF closure: for example vaginogram, water-soluble contrast enema, or examination under
anesthesia.
2)The reference list should be significantly expanded beyond the far cited references from 5-7 years
ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Repair of high Rectovaginal fistula: Report of a case Dr. S. Senthil kumaran: Title:
[email protected] Dr. C. Palanivelu: [email protected] Dr. Alfie J Kavalakat:
[email protected] Dr. R. Parthasarathi: [email protected] Dr. Neelayathatchi [email protected] Department of advanced laparoscopic and gastrointestinal surgery GEM Hospital Coimbatore-641045 India Corresponding author: C. Palanivelu, Mch, FRCS(Hon), FACS
GEM hospital, Department of advanced laparoscopic surgery Coimbatore-641045 India. Phone No.
+91-0422-2324105 Fax No. +91-0422-2320879 Key words: Laparoscopy, Rectovaginal fistula
2 29 June 2005 Version: Date:
Steven Wexner Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct):
The authors are to be complimented on describing their results with this novel technique.
1)It would be useful to know which tests were performed at the 6- month follow-up to verify success
of RVF closure: for example vaginogram, water-soluble contrast enema, or examination under
anesthesia.
2)The reference list should be significantly expanded beyond the far cited references from 5-7 years
ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_60_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 8
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.125,
"materials_and_methods": 0.125,
"praise": 0.125,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.375,
"results_and_discussion": 0.125,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.375
}
| 1.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Laparoscopic Repair of high Rectovaginal fistula: Report of a case Dr. S. Senthil kumaran: Title: \[email protected] Dr. C. Palanivelu: [email protected] Dr. Alfie J Kavalakat: \[email protected] Dr. R. Parthasarathi: [email protected] Dr. Neelayathatchi [email protected] Department of advanced laparoscopic and gastrointestinal surgery GEM Hospital Coimbatore-641045 India Corresponding author: C. Palanivelu, Mch, FRCS(Hon), FACS \nGEM hospital, Department of advanced laparoscopic surgery Coimbatore-641045 India. Phone No. \n+91-0422-2324105 Fax No. +91-0422-2320879 Key words: Laparoscopy, Rectovaginal fistula \n 2 29 June 2005 Version: Date: \n Steven Wexner Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct): \nThe authors are to be complimented on describing their results with this novel technique. \n1)It would be useful to know which tests were performed at the 6- month follow-up to verify success \nof RVF closure: for example vaginogram, water-soluble contrast enema, or examination under \nanesthesia. \n2)The reference list should be significantly expanded beyond the far cited references from 5-7 years \nago. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-20
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Repair of high Rectovaginal fistula: Report of a case Title:
2 2 August 2005 Version: Date:
Andreas D. Ebert Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Interesting surgical technique. Hopefully, a study with a bigger number of cases will be
developed/presented by the authors in the future to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic fistula repair technique -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) The figures should be more instructive. In this respect, the submitted pictures should be taken
together in 1 picture, and a schematic picture (grafic) of the surgical procedure should be added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Repair of high Rectovaginal fistula: Report of a case Title:
2 2 August 2005 Version: Date:
Andreas D. Ebert Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Interesting surgical technique. Hopefully, a study with a bigger number of cases will be
developed/presented by the authors in the future to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic fistula repair technique -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) The figures should be more instructive. In this respect, the submitted pictures should be taken
together in 1 picture, and a schematic picture (grafic) of the surgical procedure should be added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_60_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.4,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6
}
| 2.2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Laparoscopic Repair of high Rectovaginal fistula: Report of a case Title: \n 2 2 August 2005 Version: Date: \n Andreas D. Ebert Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nInteresting surgical technique. Hopefully, a study with a bigger number of cases will be \ndeveloped/presented by the authors in the future to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic fistula repair technique ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) The figures should be more instructive. In this respect, the submitted pictures should be taken \ntogether in 1 picture, and a schematic picture (grafic) of the surgical procedure should be added. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-19
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
1 27 May 2005 Version: Date:
Mashkoor Choudhry Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a nice study. I have following issues that need further attention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1. Authors should include a statement on the thickness of burn injury and also give reference in
support. Does exposure to 60 oC water give third degree burn ? if this is not a third degree burn why
analgesics were not used in the study ?
2. In the result section authors mentioned that they have determined edema in burned skin but they
have not included the method. What was the procedure that they have used in measuring skin
edema.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
3. Was there any morality in the group of rats that has received infection on the top of burn injury.
4. Did authors determine bacterial presence in any other organ.
5. Authors did not identify different lines in Fig. 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
1 27 May 2005 Version: Date:
Mashkoor Choudhry Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is a nice study. I have following issues that need further attention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1. Authors should include a statement on the thickness of burn injury and also give reference in
support. Does exposure to 60 oC water give third degree burn ? if this is not a third degree burn why
analgesics were not used in the study ?
2. In the result section authors mentioned that they have determined edema in burned skin but they
have not included the method. What was the procedure that they have used in measuring skin
edema.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
3. Was there any morality in the group of rats that has received infection on the top of burn injury.
4. Did authors determine bacterial presence in any other organ.
5. Authors did not identify different lines in Fig. 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_59_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 4,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 5,
"total": 18
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.05555555555555555,
"example": 0.2222222222222222,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.05555555555555555,
"materials_and_methods": 0.16666666666666666,
"praise": 0.1111111111111111,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2222222222222222,
"results_and_discussion": 0.1111111111111111,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.2777777777777778
}
| 1.222222
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title: \n 1 27 May 2005 Version: Date: \n Mashkoor Choudhry Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is a nice study. I have following issues that need further attention. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n1. Authors should include a statement on the thickness of burn injury and also give reference in \nsupport. Does exposure to 60 oC water give third degree burn ? if this is not a third degree burn why \nanalgesics were not used in the study ? \n2. In the result section authors mentioned that they have determined edema in burned skin but they \nhave not included the method. What was the procedure that they have used in measuring skin \nedema. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n3. Was there any morality in the group of rats that has received infection on the top of burn injury. \n4. Did authors determine bacterial presence in any other organ. \n5. Authors did not identify different lines in Fig. 3. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests' below. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-19
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
1 27 June 2005 Version: Date:
Edward Tredget Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Summary of manuscript
This manuscript randomized 21 sp rats into burn only, burn and infection, and sham burn before they
serially measured weight loss/gain, LPS, and IL-10, IL-1, TNF and IL-6 up to 12 days post burn. The
principal findings were an early weight loss in the infected/burn group, elevated endotoxin, TNF and
IL-1 levels post burn. The manuscript is well written, very straight forward in approach and contains a
number of useful biochemical analyses of an in vivo animal burn model. Results are interesting and
of importance.
Concerns with the Manuscript 1. The findings are not very novel in that Moldawer et al conducted similar experiments in 1988 in
infected burn animals with similar findings. What new information is conveyed in these experiments?
2. In figure 3 the symbols of statistical significance cannot be made out on the data expressed in the
figure.
3. Do the authors know if the weight loss was a function of reduced food intake or a direct metabolic
effect of nutrient utilization in the burn or burn/infected group?
4. Do the authors know the depth of the burn and the duration of time for the wound to heal? Do they
know whether the injury led to any intra abdominal injury which could affect intake or absorption?
5. What is the proposed mechanism of activation of elevated LPS and cytokines especially TNF
upon metabolism and how could it lead to the weight loss observed?
6. Did the authors perform a second anesthetic 24 hours post-depiliation, if so they should make it
clear that the burn injury was carried out under anesthesia.
7. The authors should elaborate for the reader the distinction between SIRS and CARS and which
model of injury represented which and based on what criteria.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
1 27 June 2005 Version: Date:
Edward Tredget Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Summary of manuscript
This manuscript randomized 21 sp rats into burn only, burn and infection, and sham burn before they
serially measured weight loss/gain, LPS, and IL-10, IL-1, TNF and IL-6 up to 12 days post burn. The
principal findings were an early weight loss in the infected/burn group, elevated endotoxin, TNF and
IL-1 levels post burn. The manuscript is well written, very straight forward in approach and contains a
number of useful biochemical analyses of an in vivo animal burn model. Results are interesting and
of importance.
Concerns with the Manuscript 1. The findings are not very novel in that Moldawer et al conducted similar experiments in 1988 in
infected burn animals with similar findings. What new information is conveyed in these experiments?
2. In figure 3 the symbols of statistical significance cannot be made out on the data expressed in the
figure.
3. Do the authors know if the weight loss was a function of reduced food intake or a direct metabolic
effect of nutrient utilization in the burn or burn/infected group?
4. Do the authors know the depth of the burn and the duration of time for the wound to heal? Do they
know whether the injury led to any intra abdominal injury which could affect intake or absorption?
5. What is the proposed mechanism of activation of elevated LPS and cytokines especially TNF
upon metabolism and how could it lead to the weight loss observed?
6. Did the authors perform a second anesthetic 24 hours post-depiliation, if so they should make it
clear that the burn injury was carried out under anesthesia.
7. The authors should elaborate for the reader the distinction between SIRS and CARS and which
model of injury represented which and based on what criteria.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_59_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 9,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 22
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.13636363636363635,
"example": 0.09090909090909091,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.09090909090909091,
"materials_and_methods": 0.4090909090909091,
"praise": 0.09090909090909091,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.13636363636363635,
"results_and_discussion": 0.18181818181818182,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.09090909090909091
}
| 1.227273
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title: \n 1 27 June 2005 Version: Date: \n Edward Tredget Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nSummary of manuscript \nThis manuscript randomized 21 sp rats into burn only, burn and infection, and sham burn before they \nserially measured weight loss/gain, LPS, and IL-10, IL-1, TNF and IL-6 up to 12 days post burn. The \nprincipal findings were an early weight loss in the infected/burn group, elevated endotoxin, TNF and \nIL-1 levels post burn. The manuscript is well written, very straight forward in approach and contains a \nnumber of useful biochemical analyses of an in vivo animal burn model. Results are interesting and \nof importance. \nConcerns with the Manuscript 1. The findings are not very novel in that Moldawer et al conducted similar experiments in 1988 in \ninfected burn animals with similar findings. What new information is conveyed in these experiments? \n2. In figure 3 the symbols of statistical significance cannot be made out on the data expressed in the \nfigure. \n3. Do the authors know if the weight loss was a function of reduced food intake or a direct metabolic \neffect of nutrient utilization in the burn or burn/infected group? \n4. Do the authors know the depth of the burn and the duration of time for the wound to heal? Do they \nknow whether the injury led to any intra abdominal injury which could affect intake or absorption? \n5. What is the proposed mechanism of activation of elevated LPS and cytokines especially TNF \nupon metabolism and how could it lead to the weight loss observed? \n6. Did the authors perform a second anesthetic 24 hours post-depiliation, if so they should make it \nclear that the burn injury was carried out under anesthesia. \n7. The authors should elaborate for the reader the distinction between SIRS and CARS and which \nmodel of injury represented which and based on what criteria. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-19
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
2 18 August 2005 Version: Date:
Edward Tredget Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Subject: Review of BMC Surgery manuscript
Re: 'Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight
loss in rats' 3484546467020516
Dear Sir:
I have reviewed the response of the authors to the reviewer's comments and the changes in the
manuscript. For the most part, the response addresses the concerns raised to my satisfaction and I
think the manuscript is a useful contribution to the understanding of weight loss after thermal injury.
Minor Concerns:
1. page 3 last line, the term inflammations should be inflammation (ie, no s).
2. page 12 "in a clinical setting it is impossible to ..." is a very categorical statement, where
impossible would be better stated as "difficult".
Despite these concerns, the manuscript is other wise acceptable with minor revision.
Thank you for the opprotunity to review this work.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
2 18 August 2005 Version: Date:
Edward Tredget Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Subject: Review of BMC Surgery manuscript
Re: 'Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight
loss in rats' 3484546467020516
Dear Sir:
I have reviewed the response of the authors to the reviewer's comments and the changes in the
manuscript. For the most part, the response addresses the concerns raised to my satisfaction and I
think the manuscript is a useful contribution to the understanding of weight loss after thermal injury.
Minor Concerns:
1. page 3 last line, the term inflammations should be inflammation (ie, no s).
2. page 12 "in a clinical setting it is impossible to ..." is a very categorical statement, where
impossible would be better stated as "difficult".
Despite these concerns, the manuscript is other wise acceptable with minor revision.
Thank you for the opprotunity to review this work.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_59_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 8
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.125,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.375,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.375,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.375
}
| 1.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title: \n 2 18 August 2005 Version: Date: \n Edward Tredget Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nSubject: Review of BMC Surgery manuscript \nRe: 'Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight \nloss in rats' 3484546467020516 \nDear Sir: \nI have reviewed the response of the authors to the reviewer's comments and the changes in the \nmanuscript. For the most part, the response addresses the concerns raised to my satisfaction and I \nthink the manuscript is a useful contribution to the understanding of weight loss after thermal injury. \nMinor Concerns: \n1. page 3 last line, the term inflammations should be inflammation (ie, no s). \n2. page 12 \"in a clinical setting it is impossible to ...\" is a very categorical statement, where \nimpossible would be better stated as \"difficult\". \nDespite these concerns, the manuscript is other wise acceptable with minor revision. \nThank you for the opprotunity to review this work. \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-19
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
2 26 August 2005 Version: Date:
Mashkoor Choudhry Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General:
In the revised manuscript, authors have adequately addressed my concerns that I had with the
previous submission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
With regard to my comment #5 about Fig. 3 labeling, I was suggesting that Y-axis also needs to be
labeled as in its present form it is not labeled.
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
Reviewer's report
Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title:
2 26 August 2005 Version: Date:
Mashkoor Choudhry Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General:
In the revised manuscript, authors have adequately addressed my concerns that I had with the
previous submission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
With regard to my comment #5 about Fig. 3 labeling, I was suggesting that Y-axis also needs to be
labeled as in its present form it is not labeled.
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_59_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6
}
| 1.8
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Burn wounds infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa triggers weight loss in rats Title: \n 2 26 August 2005 Version: Date: \n Mashkoor Choudhry Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral: \nIn the revised manuscript, authors have adequately addressed my concerns that I had with the \nprevious submission. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nWith regard to my comment #5 about Fig. 3 labeling, I was suggesting that Y-axis also needs to be \nlabeled as in its present form it is not labeled. \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-17
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
1 31 August 2004 Version: Date:
William Chapman Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In this report the authors investigate the safety of cryoablation utilizing a miniature cryoprobe technology to ablate bone tissue. The authors utilized this technique in 24 sheep undergoing two separate sites of ablation in the epiphysis of the right tibia and the metaphysis of the left femur.
Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters including pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and central
venous pressure (CVP) were measured along with pulse oximetry, blood gas exchange, and electrolytes. Postoperatively animals were sacrificed at weeks 8, 16, and 32 and tissue samples
were obtained from the lungs and bone to look for evidence of osteomyelitis and pulmonary
embolization. The authors noted no significant alterations in hemodynamics or blood gas exchange.
There was only a single postoperative wound infection and no major perioperative or postoperative complications directly associated with cryosurgery of the bone. On this basis the authors conclude
that surgery utilizing this cryoablation technique appears to be safe when administered in the fashion
utilized in this study.
This report demonstrates that the use of cryoablation for bone tissue appears to be safe and, as
performed in the current study, is not associated with systemic complications observed with
cryoablation for hepatic tissue. Specifically the multisystem complications including coagulopathy,
renal insufficiency, pulmonary injury, bleeding, and the “cryoshock phenomenon” were not observed in any animals undergoing this therapy. This important observation is likely related to one of several
possibilities. First the recognized systemic injury associated with hepatic cryoablation may be directly
related to the site of injury, i.e., liver tissue which may respond differently than bone. Second,
because the liver contains the majority of fixed macrophages in the body (in the form of Kupffer Cells), it is likely that the injury response profile is different than that observed treating bone. In addition it has been well documented that the degree of multisystem injury is directly associated with
the volume of hepatic tissue injured. In this report, the much smaller volume of tissue ablation
occurring within bone may have been a factor associated with the lack of systemic injury.
Several additional points bear comment regarding this manuscript. First this study was performed in
a normal sheep model which may be associated with differing results than in a tumor model.
Second, this report did not include a control group, for example, comparison with a resection or bone
replacement model and in this regard no comment is possible regarding the efficacy of this therapy.
Whether or not this technique has additional benefits over standard resectional techniques will need
to be addressed in future studies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
At the end of Methods, the statement "Where a fracture is suspected, X-rays should be taken
immediately...." should be changed to "When a fracture was suspected, x-rays were taken
immediately and were also taken routinely after the animals were sacrificed".
Results
In the first paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to "There was no significant change in
heart rate during the operative procedure". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
1 31 August 2004 Version: Date:
William Chapman Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In this report the authors investigate the safety of cryoablation utilizing a miniature cryoprobe technology to ablate bone tissue. The authors utilized this technique in 24 sheep undergoing two separate sites of ablation in the epiphysis of the right tibia and the metaphysis of the left femur.
Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters including pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and central
venous pressure (CVP) were measured along with pulse oximetry, blood gas exchange, and electrolytes. Postoperatively animals were sacrificed at weeks 8, 16, and 32 and tissue samples
were obtained from the lungs and bone to look for evidence of osteomyelitis and pulmonary
embolization. The authors noted no significant alterations in hemodynamics or blood gas exchange.
There was only a single postoperative wound infection and no major perioperative or postoperative complications directly associated with cryosurgery of the bone. On this basis the authors conclude
that surgery utilizing this cryoablation technique appears to be safe when administered in the fashion
utilized in this study.
This report demonstrates that the use of cryoablation for bone tissue appears to be safe and, as
performed in the current study, is not associated with systemic complications observed with
cryoablation for hepatic tissue. Specifically the multisystem complications including coagulopathy,
renal insufficiency, pulmonary injury, bleeding, and the “cryoshock phenomenon” were not observed in any animals undergoing this therapy. This important observation is likely related to one of several
possibilities. First the recognized systemic injury associated with hepatic cryoablation may be directly
related to the site of injury, i.e., liver tissue which may respond differently than bone. Second,
because the liver contains the majority of fixed macrophages in the body (in the form of Kupffer Cells), it is likely that the injury response profile is different than that observed treating bone. In addition it has been well documented that the degree of multisystem injury is directly associated with
the volume of hepatic tissue injured. In this report, the much smaller volume of tissue ablation
occurring within bone may have been a factor associated with the lack of systemic injury.
Several additional points bear comment regarding this manuscript. First this study was performed in
a normal sheep model which may be associated with differing results than in a tumor model.
Second, this report did not include a control group, for example, comparison with a resection or bone
replacement model and in this regard no comment is possible regarding the efficacy of this therapy.
Whether or not this technique has additional benefits over standard resectional techniques will need
to be addressed in future studies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
At the end of Methods, the statement "Where a fracture is suspected, X-rays should be taken
immediately...." should be changed to "When a fracture was suspected, x-rays were taken
immediately and were also taken routinely after the animals were sacrificed".
Results
In the first paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to "There was no significant change in
heart rate during the operative procedure". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_57_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 11,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 22
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.045454545454545456,
"example": 0.13636363636363635,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.13636363636363635,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.09090909090909091,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.13636363636363635,
"results_and_discussion": 0.18181818181818182,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.13636363636363635
}
| 1.363636
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title: \nanimal trial\n 1 31 August 2004 Version: Date: \n William Chapman Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nIn this report the authors investigate the safety of cryoablation utilizing a miniature cryoprobe technology to ablate bone tissue. The authors utilized this technique in 24 sheep undergoing two separate sites of ablation in the epiphysis of the right tibia and the metaphysis of the left femur. \nIntraoperative hemodynamic parameters including pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and central \nvenous pressure (CVP) were measured along with pulse oximetry, blood gas exchange, and electrolytes. Postoperatively animals were sacrificed at weeks 8, 16, and 32 and tissue samples \nwere obtained from the lungs and bone to look for evidence of osteomyelitis and pulmonary \nembolization. The authors noted no significant alterations in hemodynamics or blood gas exchange. \nThere was only a single postoperative wound infection and no major perioperative or postoperative complications directly associated with cryosurgery of the bone. On this basis the authors conclude \nthat surgery utilizing this cryoablation technique appears to be safe when administered in the fashion \nutilized in this study. \nThis report demonstrates that the use of cryoablation for bone tissue appears to be safe and, as \nperformed in the current study, is not associated with systemic complications observed with \ncryoablation for hepatic tissue. Specifically the multisystem complications including coagulopathy, \nrenal insufficiency, pulmonary injury, bleeding, and the “cryoshock phenomenon” were not observed in any animals undergoing this therapy. This important observation is likely related to one of several \npossibilities. First the recognized systemic injury associated with hepatic cryoablation may be directly \nrelated to the site of injury, i.e., liver tissue which may respond differently than bone. Second, \nbecause the liver contains the majority of fixed macrophages in the body (in the form of Kupffer Cells), it is likely that the injury response profile is different than that observed treating bone. In addition it has been well documented that the degree of multisystem injury is directly associated with \nthe volume of hepatic tissue injured. In this report, the much smaller volume of tissue ablation \noccurring within bone may have been a factor associated with the lack of systemic injury. \nSeveral additional points bear comment regarding this manuscript. First this study was performed in \na normal sheep model which may be associated with differing results than in a tumor model. \nSecond, this report did not include a control group, for example, comparison with a resection or bone \nreplacement model and in this regard no comment is possible regarding the efficacy of this therapy. \nWhether or not this technique has additional benefits over standard resectional techniques will need \nto be addressed in future studies. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nAt the end of Methods, the statement \"Where a fracture is suspected, X-rays should be taken \nimmediately....\" should be changed to \"When a fracture was suspected, x-rays were taken \nimmediately and were also taken routinely after the animals were sacrificed\". \nResults \nIn the first paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to \"There was no significant change in \nheart rate during the operative procedure\". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-17
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
1 1 September 2004 Version: Date:
Bettina W Paek Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Overall I think this is a worthwhile study describing a new promising technique
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
My main concern with this study is that while the authors focused on the safety of the procedure they
do not describe how they documented efficacy. How was formation of the lesions assessed? Is
there data from previous studies showing that cryoablation can reliably be accomplished with the
settings used in this experiment?
Also, why did the procedures take so long? This could be anissue for elderly patients. Was most of it
postoperative monitoring?
In results it is mentioned that some animals showed a marked bronchial pneumonia although the
authors claim that it is of no consequence. Please explain how you can be sure that this will hold
true in elderly and possibly immunocomprimed human subjects.
Please explain why the animals had to have such a large gastric tube to preclude the use of a
transesophageal echo probe. Would the information gathered with this have been negligible? And if
they did have a G tube how come they still developed acisosis and CO2 retention which the authors
attribute to a distended rumen? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
At the beginning of materials and methods it should be documented that these experiments were
perfomed with the approcal of the local animal care committee.
The conclusion should be modified, instead of stating that this technique "can and should be used" it
should state that this technique has potential in human subjects but will need to be investigated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Given that the native language of the authors is probably not English, I have a number of suggestions to improve syntax and flow of the paper:
In the summary put "particularly the danger of embolism" at the end of the sentence.
Backgound, first paragraph last sentence gas embolism (instead of embolisms), and spread of liquid
nitrogen (omit "the"). Last paragraph correct spelling of cryoablation and restucture sentence ie:
Various complications of cryoablation have been reported, ranging from soft tissue would infection
and fractures to bone marrow and fat embolism caused by the spread of the ice front due to an
increase in intramedullary pressure. Also, "allow precise control" is better without "a". Last sentece
would be better as : Aim of this trial was to determine whether the use of modern miniature
cryprpobes can avoid the above described complications.
Materials and methods
First describe equipment used then the animal set up (including the position and chnges in positin) and then the access and procedure. Substitute cryoablation for freezing when appropriate because it's unclear whether this refers to a particular cycle or the whole of the ablation in general.
Post-op complications were monitored clinically (instead of "detected")
What's "resp." in soft tissue resp. oteomyelitis? Regarding x-rays describe when x-rays were taken (not when they should be obtained). Did any animal undergo an x-ray to rule out fractures or did they all undergo routine x-rays at the end of the
study?
Results: the description of the positioning is confusing, avoid "back" when it does not refer to the
animal being on ots back in this context, can just say the animal was shifted to left lateral position..
Third paragraph: Better "The lungs were grossly unremarkable. Histology of the bronchopulmonary
arteries showed no evidence of acute or chronic embolism or thrombus." Paragraph 6: The drop in hemoglobin should better be defined as " not clinically significant".
Conclusion: better "in conclusion" than "altogether". Leave out the hepatic tumors, they can be
mentioned in the introduction if desired.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
NOne
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
1 1 September 2004 Version: Date:
Bettina W Paek Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Overall I think this is a worthwhile study describing a new promising technique
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
My main concern with this study is that while the authors focused on the safety of the procedure they
do not describe how they documented efficacy. How was formation of the lesions assessed? Is
there data from previous studies showing that cryoablation can reliably be accomplished with the
settings used in this experiment?
Also, why did the procedures take so long? This could be anissue for elderly patients. Was most of it
postoperative monitoring?
In results it is mentioned that some animals showed a marked bronchial pneumonia although the
authors claim that it is of no consequence. Please explain how you can be sure that this will hold
true in elderly and possibly immunocomprimed human subjects.
Please explain why the animals had to have such a large gastric tube to preclude the use of a
transesophageal echo probe. Would the information gathered with this have been negligible? And if
they did have a G tube how come they still developed acisosis and CO2 retention which the authors
attribute to a distended rumen? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
At the beginning of materials and methods it should be documented that these experiments were
perfomed with the approcal of the local animal care committee.
The conclusion should be modified, instead of stating that this technique "can and should be used" it
should state that this technique has potential in human subjects but will need to be investigated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Given that the native language of the authors is probably not English, I have a number of suggestions to improve syntax and flow of the paper:
In the summary put "particularly the danger of embolism" at the end of the sentence.
Backgound, first paragraph last sentence gas embolism (instead of embolisms), and spread of liquid
nitrogen (omit "the"). Last paragraph correct spelling of cryoablation and restucture sentence ie:
Various complications of cryoablation have been reported, ranging from soft tissue would infection
and fractures to bone marrow and fat embolism caused by the spread of the ice front due to an
increase in intramedullary pressure. Also, "allow precise control" is better without "a". Last sentece
would be better as : Aim of this trial was to determine whether the use of modern miniature
cryprpobes can avoid the above described complications.
Materials and methods
First describe equipment used then the animal set up (including the position and chnges in positin) and then the access and procedure. Substitute cryoablation for freezing when appropriate because it's unclear whether this refers to a particular cycle or the whole of the ablation in general.
Post-op complications were monitored clinically (instead of "detected")
What's "resp." in soft tissue resp. oteomyelitis? Regarding x-rays describe when x-rays were taken (not when they should be obtained). Did any animal undergo an x-ray to rule out fractures or did they all undergo routine x-rays at the end of the
study?
Results: the description of the positioning is confusing, avoid "back" when it does not refer to the
animal being on ots back in this context, can just say the animal was shifted to left lateral position..
Third paragraph: Better "The lungs were grossly unremarkable. Histology of the bronchopulmonary
arteries showed no evidence of acute or chronic embolism or thrombus." Paragraph 6: The drop in hemoglobin should better be defined as " not clinically significant".
Conclusion: better "in conclusion" than "altogether". Leave out the hepatic tumors, they can be
mentioned in the introduction if desired.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
NOne
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_57_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 7,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 14,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 13,
"results_and_discussion": 5,
"suggestion_and_solution": 14,
"total": 32
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.0625,
"example": 0.21875,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.09375,
"materials_and_methods": 0.4375,
"praise": 0.03125,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.40625,
"results_and_discussion": 0.15625,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4375
}
| 1.84375
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title: \nanimal trial\n 1 1 September 2004 Version: Date: \n Bettina W Paek Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nOverall I think this is a worthwhile study describing a new promising technique \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nMy main concern with this study is that while the authors focused on the safety of the procedure they \ndo not describe how they documented efficacy. How was formation of the lesions assessed? Is \nthere data from previous studies showing that cryoablation can reliably be accomplished with the \nsettings used in this experiment? \nAlso, why did the procedures take so long? This could be anissue for elderly patients. Was most of it \npostoperative monitoring? \nIn results it is mentioned that some animals showed a marked bronchial pneumonia although the \nauthors claim that it is of no consequence. Please explain how you can be sure that this will hold \ntrue in elderly and possibly immunocomprimed human subjects. \nPlease explain why the animals had to have such a large gastric tube to preclude the use of a \ntransesophageal echo probe. Would the information gathered with this have been negligible? And if \nthey did have a G tube how come they still developed acisosis and CO2 retention which the authors \nattribute to a distended rumen? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nAt the beginning of materials and methods it should be documented that these experiments were \nperfomed with the approcal of the local animal care committee. \nThe conclusion should be modified, instead of stating that this technique \"can and should be used\" it \nshould state that this technique has potential in human subjects but will need to be investigated. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Given that the native language of the authors is probably not English, I have a number of suggestions to improve syntax and flow of the paper: \nIn the summary put \"particularly the danger of embolism\" at the end of the sentence. \nBackgound, first paragraph last sentence gas embolism (instead of embolisms), and spread of liquid \nnitrogen (omit \"the\"). Last paragraph correct spelling of cryoablation and restucture sentence ie: \nVarious complications of cryoablation have been reported, ranging from soft tissue would infection \nand fractures to bone marrow and fat embolism caused by the spread of the ice front due to an \nincrease in intramedullary pressure. Also, \"allow precise control\" is better without \"a\". Last sentece \nwould be better as : Aim of this trial was to determine whether the use of modern miniature \ncryprpobes can avoid the above described complications. \nMaterials and methods \nFirst describe equipment used then the animal set up (including the position and chnges in positin) and then the access and procedure. Substitute cryoablation for freezing when appropriate because it's unclear whether this refers to a particular cycle or the whole of the ablation in general. \nPost-op complications were monitored clinically (instead of \"detected\") \nWhat's \"resp.\" in soft tissue resp. oteomyelitis? Regarding x-rays describe when x-rays were taken (not when they should be obtained). Did any animal undergo an x-ray to rule out fractures or did they all undergo routine x-rays at the end of the \nstudy? \nResults: the description of the positioning is confusing, avoid \"back\" when it does not refer to the \nanimal being on ots back in this context, can just say the animal was shifted to left lateral position.. \nThird paragraph: Better \"The lungs were grossly unremarkable. Histology of the bronchopulmonary \narteries showed no evidence of acute or chronic embolism or thrombus.\" Paragraph 6: The drop in hemoglobin should better be defined as \" not clinically significant\". \nConclusion: better \"in conclusion\" than \"altogether\". Leave out the hepatic tumors, they can be \nmentioned in the introduction if desired. \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNOne ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-17
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
2 26 November 2004 Version: Date:
Bettina W Paek Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) I feel that the authors have not yet adequately responded to the major criticism, ie the proof of efficacy along with safety. In the cover letter they refer to papers documenting the efficacy of the procedure, and state that these studies are the basis for understanding the current study. However,
one of these studies is not even referenced in the paper and they should explicity state the proof of
efficacy if perfomed in a previous study - was the setup comparable, what was extent of tissue
distruction? Also they refer that they studied histology, so why not mention the tissue necrosis which
they must have seen (istead of stating that the sits were "unremarkable" , I would read that as
normal, without necrosis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors did not respond to either comment made previously such as mention of approval of the local animal care commitee or modification of the conclusion to omit that this method "should" be used.
In the second paragraph, first sentenceit is unclear what "from the main points mentioned" refers to.
Please clarify.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
2 26 November 2004 Version: Date:
Bettina W Paek Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) I feel that the authors have not yet adequately responded to the major criticism, ie the proof of efficacy along with safety. In the cover letter they refer to papers documenting the efficacy of the procedure, and state that these studies are the basis for understanding the current study. However,
one of these studies is not even referenced in the paper and they should explicity state the proof of
efficacy if perfomed in a previous study - was the setup comparable, what was extent of tissue
distruction? Also they refer that they studied histology, so why not mention the tissue necrosis which
they must have seen (istead of stating that the sits were "unremarkable" , I would read that as
normal, without necrosis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors did not respond to either comment made previously such as mention of approval of the local animal care commitee or modification of the conclusion to omit that this method "should" be used.
In the second paragraph, first sentenceit is unclear what "from the main points mentioned" refers to.
Please clarify.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_57_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 4,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 6,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 5,
"total": 9
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.4444444444444444,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.1111111111111111,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6666666666666666,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5555555555555556
}
| 2.444444
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title: \nanimal trial\n 2 26 November 2004 Version: Date: \n Bettina W Paek Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n1) I feel that the authors have not yet adequately responded to the major criticism, ie the proof of efficacy along with safety. In the cover letter they refer to papers documenting the efficacy of the procedure, and state that these studies are the basis for understanding the current study. However, \none of these studies is not even referenced in the paper and they should explicity state the proof of \nefficacy if perfomed in a previous study - was the setup comparable, what was extent of tissue \ndistruction? Also they refer that they studied histology, so why not mention the tissue necrosis which \nthey must have seen (istead of stating that the sits were \"unremarkable\" , I would read that as \nnormal, without necrosis. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThe authors did not respond to either comment made previously such as mention of approval of the local animal care commitee or modification of the conclusion to omit that this method \"should\" be used. \nIn the second paragraph, first sentenceit is unclear what \"from the main points mentioned\" refers to. \nPlease clarify. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-17
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
2 30 November 2004 Version: Date:
William Chapman Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This represents a revision of a previous submission. The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous review, thus the paper appears acceptable for publication. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
2 30 November 2004 Version: Date:
William Chapman Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This represents a revision of a previous submission. The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous review, thus the paper appears acceptable for publication. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_57_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.25
}
| 1.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title: \nanimal trial\n 2 30 November 2004 Version: Date: \n William Chapman Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis represents a revision of a previous submission. The authors have addressed the concerns raised in the previous review, thus the paper appears acceptable for publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-17
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
3 16 February 2005 Version: Date:
Bettina W Paek Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Most revisions have been completed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) The authors have addressed the major compulsory revisions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
The minor essential revisions have also been addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Background line 9 embolism instead of embolisms, omit "the" in the liquid nitrogen
line 14 efficacy instead of efficiency
line 18 intramedullary pressure (not intramedullar)
Materials and Methods
line 6 cryoprobes were introduced into the bone via...
paragraph 3 line 8 left lateral recumbent position, not unilateral
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare thet I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title:
animal trial
3 16 February 2005 Version: Date:
Bettina W Paek Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Most revisions have been completed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) The authors have addressed the major compulsory revisions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
The minor essential revisions have also been addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Background line 9 embolism instead of embolisms, omit "the" in the liquid nitrogen
line 14 efficacy instead of efficiency
line 18 intramedullary pressure (not intramedullar)
Materials and Methods
line 6 cryoprobes were introduced into the bone via...
paragraph 3 line 8 left lateral recumbent position, not unilateral
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare thet I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_57_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6666666666666666,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 2.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Complications after cryosurgery with new miniature cryoprobes in long hollow bones: An Title: \nanimal trial\n 3 16 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Bettina W Paek Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nMost revisions have been completed \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) The authors have addressed the major compulsory revisions \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nThe minor essential revisions have also been addressed. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) Background line 9 embolism instead of embolisms, omit \"the\" in the liquid nitrogen \nline 14 efficacy instead of efficiency \nline 18 intramedullary pressure (not intramedullar) \nMaterials and Methods \nline 6 cryoprobes were introduced into the bone via... \nparagraph 3 line 8 left lateral recumbent position, not unilateral \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare thet I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-16
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
1 19 April 2005 Version: Date:
C S Pramesh Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
The authors describe a rare case of bronchogastric fistula subsequent to dilatation in patient who
underwent esophagectomy six years prior. The most likely cause for fistulation going by the
temporal sequence of events is the anastomotic dilatation. This fact needs to be clearly brought out in the paper.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
The authors comment (in the abstract) that there is no definite method of treatment could perhaps
be reworded as there is no agreement on the treatment for this rare condition.
Incoordination is misspelt in the paper (Page 4, para 1).
The conclusions paragraph could be omitted as it is repetitive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
1 19 April 2005 Version: Date:
C S Pramesh Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
The authors describe a rare case of bronchogastric fistula subsequent to dilatation in patient who
underwent esophagectomy six years prior. The most likely cause for fistulation going by the
temporal sequence of events is the anastomotic dilatation. This fact needs to be clearly brought out in the paper.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
The authors comment (in the abstract) that there is no definite method of treatment could perhaps
be reworded as there is no agreement on the treatment for this rare condition.
Incoordination is misspelt in the paper (Page 4, para 1).
The conclusions paragraph could be omitted as it is repetitive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_56_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 5,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 9
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2222222222222222,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.1111111111111111,
"materials_and_methods": 0.1111111111111111,
"praise": 0.1111111111111111,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5555555555555556,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2222222222222222,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4444444444444444
}
| 2.111111
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title: \n 1 19 April 2005 Version: Date: \n C S Pramesh Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nThe authors describe a rare case of bronchogastric fistula subsequent to dilatation in patient who \nunderwent esophagectomy six years prior. The most likely cause for fistulation going by the \ntemporal sequence of events is the anastomotic dilatation. This fact needs to be clearly brought out in the paper. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nThe authors comment (in the abstract) that there is no definite method of treatment could perhaps \nbe reworded as there is no agreement on the treatment for this rare condition. \nIncoordination is misspelt in the paper (Page 4, para 1). \nThe conclusions paragraph could be omitted as it is repetitive. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-16
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
1 4 May 2005 Version: Date:
Pier Paolo Brega Massone Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This work describe a case of gastro bronchial fistula that constitues a
rare, but seriuos complication of esophageal surgery.
It doesn't exist a standard surgical indication for the treatment of this complicance. The case - report under revision seems to be adequately treated by surgical
resolution not always reachable.
The discussion is exausitve and there are any controindication for the pubblication
of this manuscript.
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
1 4 May 2005 Version: Date:
Pier Paolo Brega Massone Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
This work describe a case of gastro bronchial fistula that constitues a
rare, but seriuos complication of esophageal surgery.
It doesn't exist a standard surgical indication for the treatment of this complicance. The case - report under revision seems to be adequately treated by surgical
resolution not always reachable.
The discussion is exausitve and there are any controindication for the pubblication
of this manuscript.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_56_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.6,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title: \n 1 4 May 2005 Version: Date: \n Pier Paolo Brega Massone Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThis work describe a case of gastro bronchial fistula that constitues a \nrare, but seriuos complication of esophageal surgery. \nIt doesn't exist a standard surgical indication for the treatment of this complicance. The case - report under revision seems to be adequately treated by surgical \nresolution not always reachable. \nThe discussion is exausitve and there are any controindication for the pubblication \nof this manuscript. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-16
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
1 13 May 2005 Version: Date:
glyn jamieson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1) The authors do not even give us their speculation as to why this fistula occurred.
2) Did they have an endoscopy performed at any stage? If not, why not? 3) Presumably pathology was performed on the resected specimens. What were the findings?
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
1 13 May 2005 Version: Date:
glyn jamieson Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1) The authors do not even give us their speculation as to why this fistula occurred.
2) Did they have an endoscopy performed at any stage? If not, why not? 3) Presumably pathology was performed on the resected specimens. What were the findings?
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_56_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 6
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.16666666666666666,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0.16666666666666666,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 0.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title: \n 1 13 May 2005 Version: Date: \n glyn jamieson Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nMAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS \n1) The authors do not even give us their speculation as to why this fistula occurred. \n2) Did they have an endoscopy performed at any stage? If not, why not? 3) Presumably pathology was performed on the resected specimens. What were the findings? ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-16
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
2 17 June 2005 Version: Date:
C S Pramesh Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors' revisions of the manuscript are satisfactory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Nil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Nil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
|
Reviewer's report
Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title:
2 17 June 2005 Version: Date:
C S Pramesh Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors' revisions of the manuscript are satisfactory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Nil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Nil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_56_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.25
}
| 1.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Benign Gastro-bronchial Fistula -- An Uncommon Complication of Esophagectomy. Title: \n 2 17 June 2005 Version: Date: \n C S Pramesh Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors' revisions of the manuscript are satisfactory. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nNil \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nNil \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests' below. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Giant Perforations of Duodenal Ulcer Title:
1 16 November 2004 Version: Date:
Moshe Schein Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
It is a well written short paper based on a relatively large clinical experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1. I have a problem with the definition of a "giant" ulcer. For us in the West a giant ulcer is something
larger than 2-3 cm'. A 1 cm' ulcer--used by the authors is "big" but not giant. I would suggest thus
change the title to "large...".
2. It is obvious that the bigger is the perforation, the more difficult it is to fix it and the higher is the
potential postoperative morbidity. I would like to see the breakdown of the ulcers according to sizes:
how many were larger than say 3 cm? And what were the results in such subgroup? (why not divide to subgroups of < 1 cm, 1-2 cm', 2-3 cm, > 3 cm'.
3. The authors described doing omental patch according to "Cellan Jones.". We need a reference to
support a claim that omentopexy was described first by these authors and not Roscoe Graham --the
father of "Graham patch.".
4. Please describe accurately your omental patching technique in the material and methods section.
5. Did the omentopexy in any of the patient consisted of suturing the oemntum ABOVE a sutured
perforation?
6. Was there any case with a truly perforated giant ulcer invoving both the anterior and posterior
duodenal wall. This are the type of ulcers with mandate antrectomy.
7. The authors could mention that Billroth I reconstruction is yet another option after antrectomy for
the difficult duodenum.
8. The list of refereces is poor and limited. 4 out of 6 referenes are from India. why? Surely there are
more relevant referenes in the literature!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
‘I declare that I have no competing interest.
|
Reviewer's report
Giant Perforations of Duodenal Ulcer Title:
1 16 November 2004 Version: Date:
Moshe Schein Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
It is a well written short paper based on a relatively large clinical experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1. I have a problem with the definition of a "giant" ulcer. For us in the West a giant ulcer is something
larger than 2-3 cm'. A 1 cm' ulcer--used by the authors is "big" but not giant. I would suggest thus
change the title to "large...".
2. It is obvious that the bigger is the perforation, the more difficult it is to fix it and the higher is the
potential postoperative morbidity. I would like to see the breakdown of the ulcers according to sizes:
how many were larger than say 3 cm? And what were the results in such subgroup? (why not divide to subgroups of < 1 cm, 1-2 cm', 2-3 cm, > 3 cm'.
3. The authors described doing omental patch according to "Cellan Jones.". We need a reference to
support a claim that omentopexy was described first by these authors and not Roscoe Graham --the
father of "Graham patch.".
4. Please describe accurately your omental patching technique in the material and methods section.
5. Did the omentopexy in any of the patient consisted of suturing the oemntum ABOVE a sutured
perforation?
6. Was there any case with a truly perforated giant ulcer invoving both the anterior and posterior
duodenal wall. This are the type of ulcers with mandate antrectomy.
7. The authors could mention that Billroth I reconstruction is yet another option after antrectomy for
the difficult duodenum.
8. The list of refereces is poor and limited. 4 out of 6 referenes are from India. why? Surely there are
more relevant referenes in the literature!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
‘I declare that I have no competing interest.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_55_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 6,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 8,
"total": 30
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.06666666666666667,
"example": 0.1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.03333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0.1,
"praise": 0.06666666666666667,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2,
"results_and_discussion": 0.06666666666666667,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.26666666666666666
}
| 0.9
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Giant Perforations of Duodenal Ulcer Title: \n 1 16 November 2004 Version: Date: \n Moshe Schein Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nIt is a well written short paper based on a relatively large clinical experience. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n1. I have a problem with the definition of a \"giant\" ulcer. For us in the West a giant ulcer is something \nlarger than 2-3 cm'. A 1 cm' ulcer--used by the authors is \"big\" but not giant. I would suggest thus \nchange the title to \"large...\". \n2. It is obvious that the bigger is the perforation, the more difficult it is to fix it and the higher is the \npotential postoperative morbidity. I would like to see the breakdown of the ulcers according to sizes: \nhow many were larger than say 3 cm? And what were the results in such subgroup? (why not divide to subgroups of < 1 cm, 1-2 cm', 2-3 cm, > 3 cm'. \n3. The authors described doing omental patch according to \"Cellan Jones.\". We need a reference to \nsupport a claim that omentopexy was described first by these authors and not Roscoe Graham --the \nfather of \"Graham patch.\". \n4. Please describe accurately your omental patching technique in the material and methods section. \n5. Did the omentopexy in any of the patient consisted of suturing the oemntum ABOVE a sutured \nperforation? \n6. Was there any case with a truly perforated giant ulcer invoving both the anterior and posterior \nduodenal wall. This are the type of ulcers with mandate antrectomy. \n7. The authors could mention that Billroth I reconstruction is yet another option after antrectomy for \nthe difficult duodenum. \n8. The list of refereces is poor and limited. 4 out of 6 referenes are from India. why? Surely there are \nmore relevant referenes in the literature! \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n‘I declare that I have no competing interest. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Giant Perforations of Duodenal Ulcer Title:
1 11 February 2005 Version: Date:
Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In general the study is acceptable but some revisoins are necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1) Introduction: I dont regard suturing of the omentum to the nasogastric tube as an adequate
operation method. This detail must be omitted (the same i discussion). 2) Patients and Methods: Are the perforations really measured during operations ?
This detail must be reconsidered. More ecaxt analysis of risk factors should be added. The statistical
analysis must be spesified.
3) Results: In text: The postoperative morbidity and mortality (causes of death) must be more carefully presented. Maybe a table could be more informative. Risk factor analysis must be added.
4) Discussion: One paragraph concerning factors that predict morbidity and mortality in patients with
perforated peptic ulcers must be added.
You have 17,5% mortality in patients with giant perforations. Relaparotomy must be considered in patients with continuous peritonitis. You cannot only wait and see.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Giant Perforations of Duodenal Ulcer Title:
1 11 February 2005 Version: Date:
Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In general the study is acceptable but some revisoins are necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1) Introduction: I dont regard suturing of the omentum to the nasogastric tube as an adequate
operation method. This detail must be omitted (the same i discussion). 2) Patients and Methods: Are the perforations really measured during operations ?
This detail must be reconsidered. More ecaxt analysis of risk factors should be added. The statistical
analysis must be spesified.
3) Results: In text: The postoperative morbidity and mortality (causes of death) must be more carefully presented. Maybe a table could be more informative. Risk factor analysis must be added.
4) Discussion: One paragraph concerning factors that predict morbidity and mortality in patients with
perforated peptic ulcers must be added.
You have 17,5% mortality in patients with giant perforations. Relaparotomy must be considered in patients with continuous peritonitis. You cannot only wait and see.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_55_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 6,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 7,
"results_and_discussion": 3,
"suggestion_and_solution": 11,
"total": 16
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.0625,
"example": 0.125,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.375,
"praise": 0.0625,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4375,
"results_and_discussion": 0.1875,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6875
}
| 1.9375
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Giant Perforations of Duodenal Ulcer Title: \n 1 11 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nIn general the study is acceptable but some revisoins are necessary. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n1) Introduction: I dont regard suturing of the omentum to the nasogastric tube as an adequate \noperation method. This detail must be omitted (the same i discussion). 2) Patients and Methods: Are the perforations really measured during operations ? \nThis detail must be reconsidered. More ecaxt analysis of risk factors should be added. The statistical\nanalysis must be spesified. \n3) Results: In text: The postoperative morbidity and mortality (causes of death) must be more carefully presented. Maybe a table could be more informative. Risk factor analysis must be added. \n4) Discussion: One paragraph concerning factors that predict morbidity and mortality in patients with \nperforated peptic ulcers must be added. \nYou have 17,5% mortality in patients with giant perforations. Relaparotomy must be considered in patients with continuous peritonitis. You cannot only wait and see. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title:
3 7 April 2005 Version: Date:
Moshe Schein Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have done a good job! I thus recommend acceptance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title:
3 7 April 2005 Version: Date:
Moshe Schein Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have done a good job! I thus recommend acceptance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_55_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5
}
| 1.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title: \n 3 7 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Moshe Schein Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors have done a good job! I thus recommend acceptance \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title:
3 28 April 2005 Version: Date:
Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have answered adequately to my questions and made nearly all corrections needed.
The paper is much more informative in the present form.
Two little corrections are still necessary:
1) In the present form I can accept the use of suturing to the nasogastric tube discussion but in
introduction it must be placed accordingly to the end of the sentence: or even suturing of the
omentum to the nasogastric tube. 2) Relaparotomy must be carefully considered to decrease the high mortality rate, if peritonitis
continues. This must be added to discussion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title:
3 28 April 2005 Version: Date:
Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have answered adequately to my questions and made nearly all corrections needed.
The paper is much more informative in the present form.
Two little corrections are still necessary:
1) In the present form I can accept the use of suturing to the nasogastric tube discussion but in
introduction it must be placed accordingly to the end of the sentence: or even suturing of the
omentum to the nasogastric tube. 2) Relaparotomy must be carefully considered to decrease the high mortality rate, if peritonitis
continues. This must be added to discussion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_55_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.4,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6,
"results_and_discussion": 0.4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6
}
| 2.2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title: \n 3 28 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors have answered adequately to my questions and made nearly all corrections needed. \nThe paper is much more informative in the present form. \nTwo little corrections are still necessary: \n1) In the present form I can accept the use of suturing to the nasogastric tube discussion but in \nintroduction it must be placed accordingly to the end of the sentence: or even suturing of the \nomentum to the nasogastric tube. 2) Relaparotomy must be carefully considered to decrease the high mortality rate, if peritonitis \ncontinues. This must be added to discussion \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title:
4 25 May 2005 Version: Date:
Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
I am satisfied with the corrections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title:
4 25 May 2005 Version: Date:
Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
I am satisfied with the corrections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_55_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5
}
| 1.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n The Management of Large Perforations of Duodenal Ulcers Title: \n 4 25 May 2005 Version: Date: \n Jyrki JT Mäkelä Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nI am satisfied with the corrections. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-14
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Can bile duct injuries be prevented? "A new technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy". Title:
1 20 April 2005 Version: Date:
Bertrand Millat Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Authors report a technical trick aimed at improving intraoperatively the identification of bile ducts
during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Unfortunately, intraoperative pictures joined to this report
seemed to be cases were identification was already possible regardless an injection of methylene
blue. 46 elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were performed in 15 months. Coloration of the main
bile duct failed in 3 cases out of 46 attempts however cystic duct visualisation was obtained in all the
46 cases. None of the patients had a biliary injury. None of the patients had an intraoperative
cholangiogram.
A 0% rate of BDI among 46 patients means that the 95% confidence interval for BDI is in this series
in a 0 to 6.5% range. A 0 to 0.6% range would require 500 consecutive patients without BDI. Given
the annual surgical rate of cholecystectomy in this center, more than 12 years without BDI will be
needed for the authors to bring some presumptive arguments in favor of their procedure. Moreover both pros and cons of routine IOC will regard this procedure as futile. Those who are against IOC
will consider that their careful technique is able to achieve the same result without additional time,
while tenants of IOC will consider that just to obtain « a coloration of the cystic duct » miss most of
the expected benefits of intraoperative radiological CBD exploration.
Major bile duct injuries (BDI) occuring during lap chole are still at least in a 0.3 to 0.6% range and
the actual occurence of this disaster might be underreported. BDI are a health disaster for the
patient and an economical disaster for the society before being « a cause of fear and anxiety for the
surgeons ». Any efforts aimed at reducing this risk are to be considered, however, given the 0.3 to
0.6% range for BDI, randomized evaluations of all these efforts will never be achievable. Large cohort series bring arguments in favor of routine IOC as for prevention of BDI or at least as for its
contribution to their early diagnosis. The cost of IOC and the reduction in CBD injury rates make
routine IOC use cost effective (Flum DR, et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:385-93.), provide the
cholangiogram is correctly interpreted ! Of course IOC is time consumming and requires specific equipments (fluorocholangiography). On the other hand, this reviewer thinks that « the need for an
interpretation by an experienced radiologist » should not be presented as an argument against IOC.
Ability to interpret correctly a cholangiogram has to be considered as a mandatory requirement for
any biliary surgeon.
Ability to visualize CBD with a direct puncture of the gallbladder was compared with cystic duct
cholangiography in a prospective controlled trial of 69 patients (Glättli A, et al. Surg Endosc
1994;8:299-301.). Cystic duct cholangiography showed significantly better results than cholecysto-cholangiography with optimal visualization of the biliary tree in 29 cases (76 %) and 7 cases (22 %) respectively. The failure rates were 8 % and 52 % respectively. The anatomy of the
cystic duct junction was clearly delineated in 34 cases (89.5 %) using cystic duct cholangiography
and in 11 cases (35.5 %) with cholecystocholangiography.
|
Reviewer's report
Can bile duct injuries be prevented? "A new technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy". Title:
1 20 April 2005 Version: Date:
Bertrand Millat Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
Authors report a technical trick aimed at improving intraoperatively the identification of bile ducts
during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Unfortunately, intraoperative pictures joined to this report
seemed to be cases were identification was already possible regardless an injection of methylene
blue. 46 elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were performed in 15 months. Coloration of the main
bile duct failed in 3 cases out of 46 attempts however cystic duct visualisation was obtained in all the
46 cases. None of the patients had a biliary injury. None of the patients had an intraoperative
cholangiogram.
A 0% rate of BDI among 46 patients means that the 95% confidence interval for BDI is in this series
in a 0 to 6.5% range. A 0 to 0.6% range would require 500 consecutive patients without BDI. Given
the annual surgical rate of cholecystectomy in this center, more than 12 years without BDI will be
needed for the authors to bring some presumptive arguments in favor of their procedure. Moreover both pros and cons of routine IOC will regard this procedure as futile. Those who are against IOC
will consider that their careful technique is able to achieve the same result without additional time,
while tenants of IOC will consider that just to obtain « a coloration of the cystic duct » miss most of
the expected benefits of intraoperative radiological CBD exploration.
Major bile duct injuries (BDI) occuring during lap chole are still at least in a 0.3 to 0.6% range and
the actual occurence of this disaster might be underreported. BDI are a health disaster for the
patient and an economical disaster for the society before being « a cause of fear and anxiety for the
surgeons ». Any efforts aimed at reducing this risk are to be considered, however, given the 0.3 to
0.6% range for BDI, randomized evaluations of all these efforts will never be achievable. Large cohort series bring arguments in favor of routine IOC as for prevention of BDI or at least as for its
contribution to their early diagnosis. The cost of IOC and the reduction in CBD injury rates make
routine IOC use cost effective (Flum DR, et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:385-93.), provide the
cholangiogram is correctly interpreted ! Of course IOC is time consumming and requires specific equipments (fluorocholangiography). On the other hand, this reviewer thinks that « the need for an
interpretation by an experienced radiologist » should not be presented as an argument against IOC.
Ability to interpret correctly a cholangiogram has to be considered as a mandatory requirement for
any biliary surgeon.
Ability to visualize CBD with a direct puncture of the gallbladder was compared with cystic duct
cholangiography in a prospective controlled trial of 69 patients (Glättli A, et al. Surg Endosc
1994;8:299-301.). Cystic duct cholangiography showed significantly better results than cholecysto-cholangiography with optimal visualization of the biliary tree in 29 cases (76 %) and 7 cases (22 %) respectively. The failure rates were 8 % and 52 % respectively. The anatomy of the
cystic duct junction was clearly delineated in 34 cases (89.5 %) using cystic duct cholangiography
and in 11 cases (35.5 %) with cholecystocholangiography.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_54_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 17,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 29
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.034482758620689655,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.06896551724137931,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5862068965517241,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.06896551724137931,
"results_and_discussion": 0.13793103448275862,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.13793103448275862
}
| 1.034483
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Can bile duct injuries be prevented? \"A new technique in laparoscopic cholecystectomy\". Title: \n 1 20 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Bertrand Millat Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nAuthors report a technical trick aimed at improving intraoperatively the identification of bile ducts \nduring laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Unfortunately, intraoperative pictures joined to this report \nseemed to be cases were identification was already possible regardless an injection of methylene \nblue. 46 elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were performed in 15 months. Coloration of the main \nbile duct failed in 3 cases out of 46 attempts however cystic duct visualisation was obtained in all the \n46 cases. None of the patients had a biliary injury. None of the patients had an intraoperative \ncholangiogram. \nA 0% rate of BDI among 46 patients means that the 95% confidence interval for BDI is in this series \nin a 0 to 6.5% range. A 0 to 0.6% range would require 500 consecutive patients without BDI. Given \nthe annual surgical rate of cholecystectomy in this center, more than 12 years without BDI will be \nneeded for the authors to bring some presumptive arguments in favor of their procedure. Moreover both pros and cons of routine IOC will regard this procedure as futile. Those who are against IOC \nwill consider that their careful technique is able to achieve the same result without additional time, \nwhile tenants of IOC will consider that just to obtain « a coloration of the cystic duct » miss most of \nthe expected benefits of intraoperative radiological CBD exploration. \nMajor bile duct injuries (BDI) occuring during lap chole are still at least in a 0.3 to 0.6% range and \nthe actual occurence of this disaster might be underreported. BDI are a health disaster for the \npatient and an economical disaster for the society before being « a cause of fear and anxiety for the \nsurgeons ». Any efforts aimed at reducing this risk are to be considered, however, given the 0.3 to \n0.6% range for BDI, randomized evaluations of all these efforts will never be achievable. Large cohort series bring arguments in favor of routine IOC as for prevention of BDI or at least as for its \ncontribution to their early diagnosis. The cost of IOC and the reduction in CBD injury rates make \nroutine IOC use cost effective (Flum DR, et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:385-93.), provide the \ncholangiogram is correctly interpreted ! Of course IOC is time consumming and requires specific equipments (fluorocholangiography). On the other hand, this reviewer thinks that « the need for an \ninterpretation by an experienced radiologist » should not be presented as an argument against IOC. \nAbility to interpret correctly a cholangiogram has to be considered as a mandatory requirement for \nany biliary surgeon. \nAbility to visualize CBD with a direct puncture of the gallbladder was compared with cystic duct \ncholangiography in a prospective controlled trial of 69 patients (Glättli A, et al. Surg Endosc \n1994;8:299-301.). Cystic duct cholangiography showed significantly better results than cholecysto-cholangiography with optimal visualization of the biliary tree in 29 cases (76 %) and 7 cases (22 %) respectively. The failure rates were 8 % and 52 % respectively. The anatomy of the \ncystic duct junction was clearly delineated in 34 cases (89.5 %) using cystic duct cholangiography \nand in 11 cases (35.5 %) with cholecystocholangiography. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-13
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
1 21 January 2005 Version: Date:
Raul Moreno Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The described case is interesting due to the rarity of left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in Behcet
disease. We propose the following changes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
We propose the following changes: 1. Discussion. Page 5, paragraph 3. Probably, in the case the authors have presented, surgical intervention is mandatory, partly due to the young patient age. However, the authors should clarify
that most left ventricular pseudoaneurysms result from a mechanical complication of acute
myocardial infarction. In cases of postinfarction left ventricular pseudoaneurysm, whether routine surgical repair regardless on other clinical characteristics of the patient should be indicated remains as a matter of discussion. Some authors believe that the necessity of surgical repair in these cases
should be individualized for each patient (Moreno R, et al. Heart 2003;89:1144-6).
2. Discussion. Page 6, paragraph 2. Page 5, paragraph 3. : The authors should mention other important cardiac involvements in Behcet disease (pericarditis, myocarditis, etc). 3. Discussion. Page 6, last paragraph: The role of contrast echocardiography for the diagnosis of left
ventricular pseudoaneurysm should be mention.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Minor comments:
- Page 4, paragraph 3, line 3: Replace "10.1*14.8" by "10.1x14.8". - Page 4, paragraph 4, line 3: Replace "2.5*3.0" by "2.5x3.0".
- Page 4, paragraph 5: median sternotomy is not a proper name. Write it without using capital letters.
- Page 5, paragraph 1, line 1: Replace "10.1*14.8" by "10.1x14.8".
- Reference No. 1: Replace "abdomainal" by "abdominal".
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
1 21 January 2005 Version: Date:
Raul Moreno Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The described case is interesting due to the rarity of left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in Behcet
disease. We propose the following changes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
We propose the following changes: 1. Discussion. Page 5, paragraph 3. Probably, in the case the authors have presented, surgical intervention is mandatory, partly due to the young patient age. However, the authors should clarify
that most left ventricular pseudoaneurysms result from a mechanical complication of acute
myocardial infarction. In cases of postinfarction left ventricular pseudoaneurysm, whether routine surgical repair regardless on other clinical characteristics of the patient should be indicated remains as a matter of discussion. Some authors believe that the necessity of surgical repair in these cases
should be individualized for each patient (Moreno R, et al. Heart 2003;89:1144-6).
2. Discussion. Page 6, paragraph 2. Page 5, paragraph 3. : The authors should mention other important cardiac involvements in Behcet disease (pericarditis, myocarditis, etc). 3. Discussion. Page 6, last paragraph: The role of contrast echocardiography for the diagnosis of left
ventricular pseudoaneurysm should be mention.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Minor comments:
- Page 4, paragraph 3, line 3: Replace "10.1*14.8" by "10.1x14.8". - Page 4, paragraph 4, line 3: Replace "2.5*3.0" by "2.5x3.0".
- Page 4, paragraph 5: median sternotomy is not a proper name. Write it without using capital letters.
- Page 5, paragraph 1, line 1: Replace "10.1*14.8" by "10.1x14.8".
- Reference No. 1: Replace "abdomainal" by "abdominal".
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_53_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 10,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 12,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 11,
"total": 25
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.04,
"example": 0.4,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.04,
"materials_and_methods": 0.12,
"praise": 0.08,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.48,
"results_and_discussion": 0.16,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.44
}
| 1.76
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title: \n 1 21 January 2005 Version: Date: \n Raul Moreno Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe described case is interesting due to the rarity of left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in Behcet \ndisease. We propose the following changes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \nWe propose the following changes: 1. Discussion. Page 5, paragraph 3. Probably, in the case the authors have presented, surgical intervention is mandatory, partly due to the young patient age. However, the authors should clarify \nthat most left ventricular pseudoaneurysms result from a mechanical complication of acute \nmyocardial infarction. In cases of postinfarction left ventricular pseudoaneurysm, whether routine surgical repair regardless on other clinical characteristics of the patient should be indicated remains as a matter of discussion. Some authors believe that the necessity of surgical repair in these cases \nshould be individualized for each patient (Moreno R, et al. Heart 2003;89:1144-6). \n2. Discussion. Page 6, paragraph 2. Page 5, paragraph 3. : The authors should mention other important cardiac involvements in Behcet disease (pericarditis, myocarditis, etc). 3. Discussion. Page 6, last paragraph: The role of contrast echocardiography for the diagnosis of left \nventricular pseudoaneurysm should be mention. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nMinor comments: \n- Page 4, paragraph 3, line 3: Replace \"10.1*14.8\" by \"10.1x14.8\". - Page 4, paragraph 4, line 3: Replace \"2.5*3.0\" by \"2.5x3.0\". \n- Page 4, paragraph 5: median sternotomy is not a proper name. Write it without using capital letters. \n- Page 5, paragraph 1, line 1: Replace \"10.1*14.8\" by \"10.1x14.8\". \n- Reference No. 1: Replace \"abdomainal\" by \"abdominal\". \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-13
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
1 2 February 2005 Version: Date:
Cemil Gürgün Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1. What do you think about the reason of pseudoaneurysm in this patient? (Myocardial infarction,
rupture of arterial pseudoaneurysm etc.). It should be discussed in the paper. 2. Need more detailed explanation of echocardiographic findings, like valvular dysfunction, LV wall motion abnormallities, anatomical location of the aneurysm and ratio of pseudoaneurysm orrifice to
radius which is the diagnostic criteria for pseudoaneurysm.
3. What about the coronary angiographic findings? Were threre any narrowings indicating coronary artery disease on his coronary angiography? 4. One picture of the pseudoaneurysm taken at the surgery can be put instead of one of the CT
images (for example image four).
5. On his chest X-ray (figure one), the arrow seems to be indicating some structure on his right side of his chest, the direction of the arrow is not clear also I'm not sure whether it's showing it's right
place for the pseudoaneurysm, since the chest X-ray findings and CT-MRI findings are contradictory
in terms of the location of the pseudoaneurysm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing <a
href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=labels&v=56">labels</a> on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
1 2 February 2005 Version: Date:
Cemil Gürgün Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1. What do you think about the reason of pseudoaneurysm in this patient? (Myocardial infarction,
rupture of arterial pseudoaneurysm etc.). It should be discussed in the paper. 2. Need more detailed explanation of echocardiographic findings, like valvular dysfunction, LV wall motion abnormallities, anatomical location of the aneurysm and ratio of pseudoaneurysm orrifice to
radius which is the diagnostic criteria for pseudoaneurysm.
3. What about the coronary angiographic findings? Were threre any narrowings indicating coronary artery disease on his coronary angiography? 4. One picture of the pseudoaneurysm taken at the surgery can be put instead of one of the CT
images (for example image four).
5. On his chest X-ray (figure one), the arrow seems to be indicating some structure on his right side of his chest, the direction of the arrow is not clear also I'm not sure whether it's showing it's right
place for the pseudoaneurysm, since the chest X-ray findings and CT-MRI findings are contradictory
in terms of the location of the pseudoaneurysm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing <a
href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=labels&v=56">labels</a> on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_53_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 4,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 15
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.06666666666666667,
"example": 0.13333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.06666666666666667,
"materials_and_methods": 0.06666666666666667,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.26666666666666666,
"results_and_discussion": 0.26666666666666666,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.26666666666666666
}
| 1.133333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title: \n 1 2 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Cemil Gürgün Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n1. What do you think about the reason of pseudoaneurysm in this patient? (Myocardial infarction, \nrupture of arterial pseudoaneurysm etc.). It should be discussed in the paper. 2. Need more detailed explanation of echocardiographic findings, like valvular dysfunction, LV wall motion abnormallities, anatomical location of the aneurysm and ratio of pseudoaneurysm orrifice to \nradius which is the diagnostic criteria for pseudoaneurysm. \n3. What about the coronary angiographic findings? Were threre any narrowings indicating coronary artery disease on his coronary angiography? 4. One picture of the pseudoaneurysm taken at the surgery can be put instead of one of the CT \nimages (for example image four). \n5. On his chest X-ray (figure one), the arrow seems to be indicating some structure on his right side of his chest, the direction of the arrow is not clear also I'm not sure whether it's showing it's right \nplace for the pseudoaneurysm, since the chest X-ray findings and CT-MRI findings are contradictory \nin terms of the location of the pseudoaneurysm. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing <a \nhref=\"http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=labels&v=56\">labels</a> on figures, or the wrong use \nof a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-13
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
1 6 February 2005 Version: Date:
Masamichi Ono Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
It is touoght to be a rare case, which is worth for publishment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Discussion (authors wrote as conclusions) must be re-written.It must be shoetened, and must be
commented as diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. The need for cardiopulonary bypass for tumor resection should be discussed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Figures 1-4 are too much. I think figure 1 and 2 can be deleted. Macro figure of the pseudoaneurysm
should be added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
1 6 February 2005 Version: Date:
Masamichi Ono Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
It is touoght to be a rare case, which is worth for publishment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Discussion (authors wrote as conclusions) must be re-written.It must be shoetened, and must be
commented as diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. The need for cardiopulonary bypass for tumor resection should be discussed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Figures 1-4 are too much. I think figure 1 and 2 can be deleted. Macro figure of the pseudoaneurysm
should be added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_53_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 6,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 5,
"total": 8
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.125,
"example": 0.375,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.125,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.75,
"results_and_discussion": 0.125,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.625
}
| 2.125
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title: \n 1 6 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Masamichi Ono Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nIt is touoght to be a rare case, which is worth for publishment. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nDiscussion (authors wrote as conclusions) must be re-written.It must be shoetened, and must be \ncommented as diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. The need for cardiopulonary bypass for tumor resection should be discussed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nFigures 1-4 are too much. I think figure 1 and 2 can be deleted. Macro figure of the pseudoaneurysm \nshould be added. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-13
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
2 13 April 2005 Version: Date:
Raul Moreno Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
My original criticisms about the manuscript entitled "A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a
case of Behcet`s disease and literature review" have been adequately answered.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
My original criticisms about the manuscript entitled "A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a
case of Behcet`s disease and literature review" have been adequately answered.
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
2 13 April 2005 Version: Date:
Raul Moreno Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
My original criticisms about the manuscript entitled "A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a
case of Behcet`s disease and literature review" have been adequately answered.
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
My original criticisms about the manuscript entitled "A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a
case of Behcet`s disease and literature review" have been adequately answered.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_53_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.6666666666666666,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 1.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title: \n 2 13 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Raul Moreno Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nMy original criticisms about the manuscript entitled \"A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a \ncase of Behcet`s disease and literature review\" have been adequately answered. \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nMy original criticisms about the manuscript entitled \"A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a \ncase of Behcet`s disease and literature review\" have been adequately answered. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-13
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
2 25 April 2005 Version: Date:
Cemil Gürgün Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=labels&v=56">labels</a> on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
2 25 April 2005 Version: Date:
Cemil Gürgün Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=labels&v=56">labels</a> on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_53_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.5,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title: \n 2 25 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Cemil Gürgün Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing <a href=\"http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=labels&v=56\">labels</a> on figures, or the wrong use \nof a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-13
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
2 26 April 2005 Version: Date:
Masamichi Ono Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
none
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
Masamichi Ono
|
Reviewer's report
A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title:
2 26 April 2005 Version: Date:
Masamichi Ono Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
none
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
Masamichi Ono
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_53_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n A large left ventricular pseudoaneurysm in a case of Behcet`s disease and literature review Title: \n 2 26 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Masamichi Ono Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nnone \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nnone \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nnone \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests' below. \nMasamichi Ono ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-11
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - A prospective randomized clinical study Title:
at a busy thyroid referral center.
1 24 December 2004 Version: Date:
Luis Mauricio Hurtado-Lopez Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This randomized manuscript has the potential to contribute useful information, because no body have an objective assessment of fluid collection in thyroid bed by USG without drain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)No
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) The authors must add in material and metodos if they had consent of the patients and the internal
reviewer board on the procedures to carry out.
Must eliminate as variable the changes of voice and tetany because do not have relation with the subject
Is importan to eliminate "etc." since it can be interpreted that other variable exist and is not described
In discussion eliminated "The higher proportion of patients with cancer in the
present study is due to the referral pattern from a high volume thyroid center." because in the title is done
In the discussion please extends the explanation why the presence of the drainage produces, by
itself, greater amount of fluid
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests’ below
|
Reviewer's report
Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - A prospective randomized clinical study Title:
at a busy thyroid referral center.
1 24 December 2004 Version: Date:
Luis Mauricio Hurtado-Lopez Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This randomized manuscript has the potential to contribute useful information, because no body have an objective assessment of fluid collection in thyroid bed by USG without drain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)No
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) The authors must add in material and metodos if they had consent of the patients and the internal
reviewer board on the procedures to carry out.
Must eliminate as variable the changes of voice and tetany because do not have relation with the subject
Is importan to eliminate "etc." since it can be interpreted that other variable exist and is not described
In discussion eliminated "The higher proportion of patients with cancer in the
present study is due to the referral pattern from a high volume thyroid center." because in the title is done
In the discussion please extends the explanation why the presence of the drainage produces, by
itself, greater amount of fluid
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests’ below
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_51_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 4,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 8
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.125,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.375,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.375
}
| 2.125
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - A prospective randomized clinical study Title: \nat a busy thyroid referral center. \n 1 24 December 2004 Version: Date: \n Luis Mauricio Hurtado-Lopez Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis randomized manuscript has the potential to contribute useful information, because no body have an objective assessment of fluid collection in thyroid bed by USG without drain. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)No \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) The authors must add in material and metodos if they had consent of the patients and the internal \nreviewer board on the procedures to carry out. \nMust eliminate as variable the changes of voice and tetany because do not have relation with the subject \nIs importan to eliminate \"etc.\" since it can be interpreted that other variable exist and is not described \nIn discussion eliminated \"The higher proportion of patients with cancer in the \npresent study is due to the referral pattern from a high volume thyroid center.\" because in the title is done \nIn the discussion please extends the explanation why the presence of the drainage produces, by \nitself, greater amount of fluid \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests’ below ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-11
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - A prospective randomized clinical study Title:
at a busy thyroid referral center.
1 4 January 2005 Version: Date:
D Terris Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1. It is not necessary to state "at a busy thyroid referral center"; in fact, 102 thyroidectomies in 15 months is not all that busy
2. The authors should clarify in the abstract what was actually done - there
is no mention of randomizing the patients into 2 groups, and what each group constituted. It becomes clear later in the manuscript, but it should be mentioned in the abstract.
3. In the abstract the authors mention a study duration of 1 year, when in
fact it is 15 months
4. There is no mention of preoperative or postoperative flexible
laryngoscopy. This would certainly define the cause of the "transient change in voice" in five patients, and the authors are encouraged to perform this routinely on their patients.
5. The authors should indicate whether or not the ultrasounds were done by
the same radiologist, since interoperator variability may impact their findings.
6. The authors do not indicate why the drains increase the length of the
hospital stay. Why would that be the case if the drains are routinely removed at 48 hours?
7. The authors should speculate on the correlation between complications and
drain output. In particular, the implication of an association between drains and voice changes should be explained.
8. Finally, the conclusion section should be restated to indicate that
drains may contribute to postoperative drainage, rather than the statement that they do contribute. There is no proof in this paper that the drains
cause drainage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - A prospective randomized clinical study Title:
at a busy thyroid referral center.
1 4 January 2005 Version: Date:
D Terris Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1. It is not necessary to state "at a busy thyroid referral center"; in fact, 102 thyroidectomies in 15 months is not all that busy
2. The authors should clarify in the abstract what was actually done - there
is no mention of randomizing the patients into 2 groups, and what each group constituted. It becomes clear later in the manuscript, but it should be mentioned in the abstract.
3. In the abstract the authors mention a study duration of 1 year, when in
fact it is 15 months
4. There is no mention of preoperative or postoperative flexible
laryngoscopy. This would certainly define the cause of the "transient change in voice" in five patients, and the authors are encouraged to perform this routinely on their patients.
5. The authors should indicate whether or not the ultrasounds were done by
the same radiologist, since interoperator variability may impact their findings.
6. The authors do not indicate why the drains increase the length of the
hospital stay. Why would that be the case if the drains are routinely removed at 48 hours?
7. The authors should speculate on the correlation between complications and
drain output. In particular, the implication of an association between drains and voice changes should be explained.
8. Finally, the conclusion section should be restated to indicate that
drains may contribute to postoperative drainage, rather than the statement that they do contribute. There is no proof in this paper that the drains
cause drainage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_51_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 4,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 5,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 6,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 23
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.17391304347826086,
"example": 0.08695652173913043,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.043478260869565216,
"materials_and_methods": 0.21739130434782608,
"praise": 0.043478260869565216,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.2608695652173913,
"results_and_discussion": 0.17391304347826086,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.30434782608695654
}
| 1.304348
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - A prospective randomized clinical study Title: \nat a busy thyroid referral center. \n 1 4 January 2005 Version: Date: \n D Terris Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n1. It is not necessary to state \"at a busy thyroid referral center\"; in fact, 102 thyroidectomies in 15 months is not all that busy \n2. The authors should clarify in the abstract what was actually done - there \nis no mention of randomizing the patients into 2 groups, and what each group constituted. It becomes clear later in the manuscript, but it should be mentioned in the abstract. \n3. In the abstract the authors mention a study duration of 1 year, when in \nfact it is 15 months \n4. There is no mention of preoperative or postoperative flexible \nlaryngoscopy. This would certainly define the cause of the \"transient change in voice\" in five patients, and the authors are encouraged to perform this routinely on their patients. \n5. The authors should indicate whether or not the ultrasounds were done by \nthe same radiologist, since interoperator variability may impact their findings. \n6. The authors do not indicate why the drains increase the length of the \nhospital stay. Why would that be the case if the drains are routinely removed at 48 hours? \n7. The authors should speculate on the correlation between complications and \ndrain output. In particular, the implication of an association between drains and voice changes should be explained. \n8. Finally, the conclusion section should be restated to indicate that \ndrains may contribute to postoperative drainage, rather than the statement that they do contribute. There is no proof in this paper that the drains \ncause drainage. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-11
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - a prospective randomized clinical Title:
study[ISRCTN63623153]
4 15 March 2005 Version: Date:
David J Terris Reviewer:
Accept without revision What next?:
|
Reviewer's report
Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - a prospective randomized clinical Title:
study[ISRCTN63623153]
4 15 March 2005 Version: Date:
David J Terris Reviewer:
Accept without revision What next?:
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_51_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 0.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Is routine drainage after thyroid surgery necessary? - a prospective randomized clinical Title: \nstudy[ISRCTN63623153] \n 4 15 March 2005 Version: Date: \n David J Terris Reviewer: \n Accept without revision What next?: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-10
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title:
Operative and Midterm Results
1 7 February 2005 Version: Date:
Andrew Epstein Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This paper provides a convincing case that acceptable outcomes for CABG patients can be
achieved in a specific low volume center. The authors augment the existing literature with a detailed
roadmap that involves importing high volume surgeons from an existing high volume center. While
the results are not surprising, they are potentially useful in comparing different strategies for ensuring performance at low volume centers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors need to define the acronym "CPB".
Very minor, miscellaneous copyediting issues should be addressed. Proposed corrections noted
with "*" include:
p. 5, line 5: "..., and *are* regularly...."
p. 6, line 3: "...demonstrated *a* similar..."
p. 6, line 16: "...corresponding O/E...0.81 and adjusted"
p. 8, line 18: "...variablility, *and* clustering..." p. 9, line last: "...[27]*,* and..." p. 10, line 13: "...the STS*,* but is..."
p. 12, line 3: "...physician*;* however..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Although the authors document that outcomes in their low volume hospital are generally at least as
good as the national average, the design of their study does not allow them to do more than
speculate as to why. Because the surgeons at the low volume hospital also operate at a nearby high
volume center, adding data from CABG patients operated on at the high volume hospital would
provide an interesting and useful comparison, if these data are available.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title:
Operative and Midterm Results
1 7 February 2005 Version: Date:
Andrew Epstein Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This paper provides a convincing case that acceptable outcomes for CABG patients can be
achieved in a specific low volume center. The authors augment the existing literature with a detailed
roadmap that involves importing high volume surgeons from an existing high volume center. While
the results are not surprising, they are potentially useful in comparing different strategies for ensuring performance at low volume centers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors need to define the acronym "CPB".
Very minor, miscellaneous copyediting issues should be addressed. Proposed corrections noted
with "*" include:
p. 5, line 5: "..., and *are* regularly...."
p. 6, line 3: "...demonstrated *a* similar..."
p. 6, line 16: "...corresponding O/E...0.81 and adjusted"
p. 8, line 18: "...variablility, *and* clustering..." p. 9, line last: "...[27]*,* and..." p. 10, line 13: "...the STS*,* but is..."
p. 12, line 3: "...physician*;* however..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Although the authors document that outcomes in their low volume hospital are generally at least as
good as the national average, the design of their study does not allow them to do more than
speculate as to why. Because the surgeons at the low volume hospital also operate at a nearby high
volume center, adding data from CABG patients operated on at the high volume hospital would
provide an interesting and useful comparison, if these data are available.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_50_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 10
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.1,
"example": 0.3,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.1,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3,
"results_and_discussion": 0.1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4
}
| 1.8
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title: \nOperative and Midterm Results \n 1 7 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Andrew Epstein Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis paper provides a convincing case that acceptable outcomes for CABG patients can be \nachieved in a specific low volume center. The authors augment the existing literature with a detailed \nroadmap that involves importing high volume surgeons from an existing high volume center. While \nthe results are not surprising, they are potentially useful in comparing different strategies for ensuring performance at low volume centers. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nNone. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThe authors need to define the acronym \"CPB\". \nVery minor, miscellaneous copyediting issues should be addressed. Proposed corrections noted \nwith \"*\" include: \np. 5, line 5: \"..., and *are* regularly....\" \np. 6, line 3: \"...demonstrated *a* similar...\" \np. 6, line 16: \"...corresponding O/E...0.81 and adjusted\" \np. 8, line 18: \"...variablility, *and* clustering...\" p. 9, line last: \"...[27]*,* and...\" p. 10, line 13: \"...the STS*,* but is...\" \np. 12, line 3: \"...physician*;* however...\" \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nAlthough the authors document that outcomes in their low volume hospital are generally at least as \ngood as the national average, the design of their study does not allow them to do more than \nspeculate as to why. Because the surgeons at the low volume hospital also operate at a nearby high \nvolume center, adding data from CABG patients operated on at the high volume hospital would \nprovide an interesting and useful comparison, if these data are available. \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-10
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title:
Operative and Midterm Results
1 29 March 2005 Version: Date:
Justin B Dimick Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors frame their paper around the Leapfrog volume standards. However, the recent update of the Leapfrog Standards also includes mortality rates, as asessed by the STS measurement
platform (just as the authors have done). Hospitals must demonstrate mortality rates below the
national average and meet the volume standards to receive full credit.
1. The authors should be congratulated for tracking their outcomes and engaging in quality
improvement. But it would be nice to reframe their paper and discussion around the updated
Leapfrog standards--especially since they are in compliance with the mortality standard.
2. The authors should also consider that hospital volume is only a proxy for low mortality (high
quality). It is well recognized that some low volume hospitals have good outcomes --such as the
authors-- and some high volume hospitals have bad outcomes. But, on average, higher volume hospitals always have better outcomes. Since this is a well-known phenomenon, the authors
demonstration of a high quality low volume center is not unexpected, especially since the hospital in
the study shared high volume surgeons with another high volume hospital. The authors should
consider this issue of volume as a "proxy" in their discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
- Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either
now or in the future?
Yes. Previous consultant for the Leapfrog Group.
No other competing interests.
|
Reviewer's report
Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title:
Operative and Midterm Results
1 29 March 2005 Version: Date:
Justin B Dimick Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The authors frame their paper around the Leapfrog volume standards. However, the recent update of the Leapfrog Standards also includes mortality rates, as asessed by the STS measurement
platform (just as the authors have done). Hospitals must demonstrate mortality rates below the
national average and meet the volume standards to receive full credit.
1. The authors should be congratulated for tracking their outcomes and engaging in quality
improvement. But it would be nice to reframe their paper and discussion around the updated
Leapfrog standards--especially since they are in compliance with the mortality standard.
2. The authors should also consider that hospital volume is only a proxy for low mortality (high
quality). It is well recognized that some low volume hospitals have good outcomes --such as the
authors-- and some high volume hospitals have bad outcomes. But, on average, higher volume hospitals always have better outcomes. Since this is a well-known phenomenon, the authors
demonstration of a high quality low volume center is not unexpected, especially since the hospital in
the study shared high volume surgeons with another high volume hospital. The authors should
consider this issue of volume as a "proxy" in their discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
- Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either
now or in the future?
Yes. Previous consultant for the Leapfrog Group.
No other competing interests.
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_50_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 4,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 4,
"suggestion_and_solution": 5,
"total": 17
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.058823529411764705,
"example": 0.058823529411764705,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.058823529411764705,
"materials_and_methods": 0.23529411764705882,
"praise": 0.11764705882352941,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0.23529411764705882,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.29411764705882354
}
| 1.058824
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title: \nOperative and Midterm Results \n 1 29 March 2005 Version: Date: \n Justin B Dimick Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThe authors frame their paper around the Leapfrog volume standards. However, the recent update of the Leapfrog Standards also includes mortality rates, as asessed by the STS measurement \nplatform (just as the authors have done). Hospitals must demonstrate mortality rates below the \nnational average and meet the volume standards to receive full credit. \n1. The authors should be congratulated for tracking their outcomes and engaging in quality \nimprovement. But it would be nice to reframe their paper and discussion around the updated \nLeapfrog standards--especially since they are in compliance with the mortality standard. \n2. The authors should also consider that hospital volume is only a proxy for low mortality (high \nquality). It is well recognized that some low volume hospitals have good outcomes --such as the \nauthors-- and some high volume hospitals have bad outcomes. But, on average, higher volume hospitals always have better outcomes. Since this is a well-known phenomenon, the authors \ndemonstration of a high quality low volume center is not unexpected, especially since the hospital in \nthe study shared high volume surgeons with another high volume hospital. The authors should \nconsider this issue of volume as a \"proxy\" in their discussion. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \n- Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an \norganisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either \nnow or in the future? \nYes. Previous consultant for the Leapfrog Group. \nNo other competing interests. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-10
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title:
Operative and Midterm Results
2 26 April 2005 Version: Date:
Justin B Dimick Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The changes are acceptable to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title:
Operative and Midterm Results
2 26 April 2005 Version: Date:
Justin B Dimick Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The changes are acceptable to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_50_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Early Efficacy of CABG Care Delivery in a Low Procedure-Volume Community Hospital: Title: \nOperative and Midterm Results \n 2 26 April 2005 Version: Date: \n Justin B Dimick Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe changes are acceptable to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-9
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
The minimally invasive open video-assisted approach in surgical thyroid diseases Title:
1 4 December 2004 Version: Date:
Kazuo Shimizu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is the article that describes usefulness and advantages of video-assisted endoscopic thyroid
surgery compared with that of traditional thyroid surgery. It also described the limitation of this technique regarding the dimension of the tumor and indication of the thyroid diseases. The procedure of their technique (Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted (MIVA) thyroid surgery) is well
described. I almost agree with authorâ €™s concept regarding the video-assisted endoscopic thyroid
surgery written in the discussion. However, several points should be explained, added and clarified
to be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The author selected video-assisted open wound surgery as a minimally invasive thyroid surgery
instead of endoscopic â €œpureâ € approach making the incision on the anterior neck. Reference
citation is not good enough for evaluation of endoscopic thyroidectomy in introduction and
discussion. There are many other papers of open-wounded video-assisted thyroid surgery and other
approaches (J Surg Oncol 69:178,1998 Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 177:342, 1999 J Am
Coll Surg 188:697, 1999 Surg Today 31:1, 2001 Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 15:123, 2001
Am J Surg 183:286, 2002 Asian J Surg 26:92, 2003 etc). The author should refer the contents of
those papers.
2. (Results Line 7-8) It will be better to define the MIVA thyroid surgery more clearly. The author
described the incision size is about 3 cm. Why 3.5 cm length is not MIVA surgery. 3. (Page 5 Line 7) The maximum size of resected thyroid tumor is 3.5 cm in diameter. I wonder how the author selected the operative indication of benign thyroid nodule measuring less than 3.5 cm.
Such a small benign tumor can be conservatively observed. According to other papers, 5-6 cm of
nodule can be resectable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Page 2, Background, Exclusion criteria, Relative ⇒Basedow→Basedowâ €™s, cronic→chronic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
The minimally invasive open video-assisted approach in surgical thyroid diseases Title:
1 4 December 2004 Version: Date:
Kazuo Shimizu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is the article that describes usefulness and advantages of video-assisted endoscopic thyroid
surgery compared with that of traditional thyroid surgery. It also described the limitation of this technique regarding the dimension of the tumor and indication of the thyroid diseases. The procedure of their technique (Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted (MIVA) thyroid surgery) is well
described. I almost agree with authorâ €™s concept regarding the video-assisted endoscopic thyroid
surgery written in the discussion. However, several points should be explained, added and clarified
to be accepted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The author selected video-assisted open wound surgery as a minimally invasive thyroid surgery
instead of endoscopic â €œpureâ € approach making the incision on the anterior neck. Reference
citation is not good enough for evaluation of endoscopic thyroidectomy in introduction and
discussion. There are many other papers of open-wounded video-assisted thyroid surgery and other
approaches (J Surg Oncol 69:178,1998 Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 177:342, 1999 J Am
Coll Surg 188:697, 1999 Surg Today 31:1, 2001 Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 15:123, 2001
Am J Surg 183:286, 2002 Asian J Surg 26:92, 2003 etc). The author should refer the contents of
those papers.
2. (Results Line 7-8) It will be better to define the MIVA thyroid surgery more clearly. The author
described the incision size is about 3 cm. Why 3.5 cm length is not MIVA surgery. 3. (Page 5 Line 7) The maximum size of resected thyroid tumor is 3.5 cm in diameter. I wonder how the author selected the operative indication of benign thyroid nodule measuring less than 3.5 cm.
Such a small benign tumor can be conservatively observed. According to other papers, 5-6 cm of
nodule can be resectable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Page 2, Background, Exclusion criteria, Relative ⇒Basedow→Basedowâ €™s, cronic→chronic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_49_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 5,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 7,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 7,
"results_and_discussion": 3,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 22
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.045454545454545456,
"example": 0.22727272727272727,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.09090909090909091,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3181818181818182,
"praise": 0.09090909090909091,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3181818181818182,
"results_and_discussion": 0.13636363636363635,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.13636363636363635
}
| 1.363636
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n The minimally invasive open video-assisted approach in surgical thyroid diseases Title: \n 1 4 December 2004 Version: Date: \n Kazuo Shimizu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is the article that describes usefulness and advantages of video-assisted endoscopic thyroid \nsurgery compared with that of traditional thyroid surgery. It also described the limitation of this technique regarding the dimension of the tumor and indication of the thyroid diseases. The procedure of their technique (Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted (MIVA) thyroid surgery) is well \ndescribed. I almost agree with authorâ €™s concept regarding the video-assisted endoscopic thyroid \nsurgery written in the discussion. However, several points should be explained, added and clarified \nto be accepted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n1. The author selected video-assisted open wound surgery as a minimally invasive thyroid surgery \ninstead of endoscopic â €œpureâ €\u0001 approach making the incision on the anterior neck. Reference \ncitation is not good enough for evaluation of endoscopic thyroidectomy in introduction and \ndiscussion. There are many other papers of open-wounded video-assisted thyroid surgery and other \napproaches (J Surg Oncol 69:178,1998 Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 177:342, 1999 J Am \nColl Surg 188:697, 1999 Surg Today 31:1, 2001 Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 15:123, 2001 \nAm J Surg 183:286, 2002 Asian J Surg 26:92, 2003 etc). The author should refer the contents of \nthose papers. \n2. (Results Line 7-8) It will be better to define the MIVA thyroid surgery more clearly. The author \ndescribed the incision size is about 3 cm. Why 3.5 cm length is not MIVA surgery. 3. (Page 5 Line 7) The maximum size of resected thyroid tumor is 3.5 cm in diameter. I wonder how the author selected the operative indication of benign thyroid nodule measuring less than 3.5 cm. \nSuch a small benign tumor can be conservatively observed. According to other papers, 5-6 cm of \nnodule can be resectable. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n1. Page 2, Background, Exclusion criteria, Relative ⇒Basedow→Basedowâ €™s, cronic→chronic \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-9
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
The minimally invasive open video-assisted approach in surgical thyroid diseases Title:
3 16 March 2005 Version: Date:
Kazuo Shimizu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The points that I made comments are satisfactory rivised as I indicated. Therefore, this paper can be
accepted to BioMed Central Editorial.
Accept without revision What next?:
|
Reviewer's report
The minimally invasive open video-assisted approach in surgical thyroid diseases Title:
3 16 March 2005 Version: Date:
Kazuo Shimizu Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The points that I made comments are satisfactory rivised as I indicated. Therefore, this paper can be
accepted to BioMed Central Editorial.
Accept without revision What next?:
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_49_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.25,
"praise": 0.25,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.25
}
| 0.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n The minimally invasive open video-assisted approach in surgical thyroid diseases Title: \n 3 16 March 2005 Version: Date: \n Kazuo Shimizu Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThe points that I made comments are satisfactory rivised as I indicated. Therefore, this paper can be \naccepted to BioMed Central Editorial. \n Accept without revision What next?: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
2 20 October 2004 Version: Date:
Anthony J Senagore Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Well written and analyzed report on an interesting assessment of operative risk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
---None----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
the only critical comment to the authors is that the POSSUM is sensitive to the healthcare system
and the procedure. The authors have a solid data set on which to perform a more rigorous regression analysis to make the POSSUM equation fit this procedure and system more tightly. They
would then be able to test the correctness ofthe modification prospectively.
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
Yes Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
2 20 October 2004 Version: Date:
Anthony J Senagore Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Well written and analyzed report on an interesting assessment of operative risk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
---None----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
the only critical comment to the authors is that the POSSUM is sensitive to the healthcare system
and the procedure. The authors have a solid data set on which to perform a more rigorous regression analysis to make the POSSUM equation fit this procedure and system more tightly. They
would then be able to test the correctness ofthe modification prospectively.
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
Yes Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_48_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 6
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.16666666666666666,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.3333333333333333,
"results_and_discussion": 0.16666666666666666,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.16666666666666666
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title: \nD2-gastrectomy \n 2 20 October 2004 Version: Date: \n Anthony J Senagore Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nWell written and analyzed report on an interesting assessment of operative risk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n---None---------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nthe only critical comment to the authors is that the POSSUM is sensitive to the healthcare system \nand the procedure. The authors have a solid data set on which to perform a more rigorous regression analysis to make the POSSUM equation fit this procedure and system more tightly. They \nwould then be able to test the correctness ofthe modification prospectively. \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n Yes Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
2 10 November 2004 Version: Date:
Alessandro Brunelli Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The Authors evaluated the POSSUM scoring system in a subset of patients undergoing D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. They found that the mortality equation overpredicted the observed mortality in their population and that the morbidity equation had a similar overprediction
behaviour unless the outcome measures (mortality and morbidity) were not grouped in some way
toghether to obtain a better predictive ability of the models.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) 1)The conclusions of the Abstract are not in line with the results of the study and with the conclusions of the manuscript. From the results generated in the study POSSUM was not a good
instrument for risk-adjusted evaluation of outcome after gastrectomy.
2)The definition of the postoperative course should be more accurate. The individual complications
should be listed within each group of course of disease. Tere is a high degree of subjectivity in this
approach of defining complication without taking into consideration the precise number of
complication (admittedly only based on clinical impression). Why the Authors did not use the list of complications proposed by Copeland et al in their original POSSUM paper? It seems that they are testing a scoring system which was designed to predict a certain outcome by using a different more
subjective outcome endpoint, based on "clinical impression". Their poor POSSUM predictive ability
may reside in a subjective bias rather than in a failure of the system.The Author should comment on that point. 3) In the results section and subsequently throughout the text the Authors stated that they used the
R1 equation to assess mortality. However in the Methods section the R1 equation is the one for
morbidity (as reported in the original Copeland study).This is a major mistake that flaw the entire manuscript and conclusions. Could the Authors give an explanation on wy they used a morbidity equation to assess mortality and viceversa.
4) The other major problem I found difficult to accept in statistical and logical terms was the fact that
the Authors' grouped toghether severe complications and mortality and found that the mortality equation (?) was then well calibrated for the prediction of this "Hybrid" outcome.The Authors should
justify this rather original approach which I find inappropriate.
5)For testing their hypothesis, I think the Authors should first of all use the right equations for the
proper outcomes (which should be better defined) 6) If the Authors want to propose a correction factor to improve the predictive ability of POSSUM in this subgroup of patients (provided there would be a discrepancy between observed and predicted
values, and provided this discrepancy would be caused by an underperformance of POSSUM rather
than an overperformace of the surgical equipe - results better than expected) they should have performed a logistic regression analysis for morbidity and mortality by using the POSSUM PS and OSS as independent variables. Subsequently, the models should be assessed by calibration
analysis and validated by some form of resampling procedure (i.e. bootstrap analysis)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-pg 10, Results section, third line from bottom: the pvalue reported (p<0.05), whta does it mean in
this context: that there is a significant difference whithin each group? Please verify.
pg 11, line 4 from top: What the pvalue reported herein (p=0.013) means in this context. Please explain better. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
2 10 November 2004 Version: Date:
Alessandro Brunelli Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The Authors evaluated the POSSUM scoring system in a subset of patients undergoing D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. They found that the mortality equation overpredicted the observed mortality in their population and that the morbidity equation had a similar overprediction
behaviour unless the outcome measures (mortality and morbidity) were not grouped in some way
toghether to obtain a better predictive ability of the models.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) 1)The conclusions of the Abstract are not in line with the results of the study and with the conclusions of the manuscript. From the results generated in the study POSSUM was not a good
instrument for risk-adjusted evaluation of outcome after gastrectomy.
2)The definition of the postoperative course should be more accurate. The individual complications
should be listed within each group of course of disease. Tere is a high degree of subjectivity in this
approach of defining complication without taking into consideration the precise number of
complication (admittedly only based on clinical impression). Why the Authors did not use the list of complications proposed by Copeland et al in their original POSSUM paper? It seems that they are testing a scoring system which was designed to predict a certain outcome by using a different more
subjective outcome endpoint, based on "clinical impression". Their poor POSSUM predictive ability
may reside in a subjective bias rather than in a failure of the system.The Author should comment on that point. 3) In the results section and subsequently throughout the text the Authors stated that they used the
R1 equation to assess mortality. However in the Methods section the R1 equation is the one for
morbidity (as reported in the original Copeland study).This is a major mistake that flaw the entire manuscript and conclusions. Could the Authors give an explanation on wy they used a morbidity equation to assess mortality and viceversa.
4) The other major problem I found difficult to accept in statistical and logical terms was the fact that
the Authors' grouped toghether severe complications and mortality and found that the mortality equation (?) was then well calibrated for the prediction of this "Hybrid" outcome.The Authors should
justify this rather original approach which I find inappropriate.
5)For testing their hypothesis, I think the Authors should first of all use the right equations for the
proper outcomes (which should be better defined) 6) If the Authors want to propose a correction factor to improve the predictive ability of POSSUM in this subgroup of patients (provided there would be a discrepancy between observed and predicted
values, and provided this discrepancy would be caused by an underperformance of POSSUM rather
than an overperformace of the surgical equipe - results better than expected) they should have performed a logistic regression analysis for morbidity and mortality by using the POSSUM PS and OSS as independent variables. Subsequently, the models should be assessed by calibration
analysis and validated by some form of resampling procedure (i.e. bootstrap analysis)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-pg 10, Results section, third line from bottom: the pvalue reported (p<0.05), whta does it mean in
this context: that there is a significant difference whithin each group? Please verify.
pg 11, line 4 from top: What the pvalue reported herein (p=0.013) means in this context. Please explain better. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_48_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 4,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 10,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 5,
"results_and_discussion": 10,
"suggestion_and_solution": 9,
"total": 23
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.17391304347826086,
"example": 0.17391304347826086,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.08695652173913043,
"materials_and_methods": 0.43478260869565216,
"praise": 0.043478260869565216,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.21739130434782608,
"results_and_discussion": 0.43478260869565216,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.391304347826087
}
| 1.956522
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title: \nD2-gastrectomy \n 2 10 November 2004 Version: Date: \n Alessandro Brunelli Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe Authors evaluated the POSSUM scoring system in a subset of patients undergoing D2-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. They found that the mortality equation overpredicted the observed mortality in their population and that the morbidity equation had a similar overprediction \nbehaviour unless the outcome measures (mortality and morbidity) were not grouped in some way \ntoghether to obtain a better predictive ability of the models. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) 1)The conclusions of the Abstract are not in line with the results of the study and with the conclusions of the manuscript. From the results generated in the study POSSUM was not a good \ninstrument for risk-adjusted evaluation of outcome after gastrectomy. \n2)The definition of the postoperative course should be more accurate. The individual complications \nshould be listed within each group of course of disease. Tere is a high degree of subjectivity in this \napproach of defining complication without taking into consideration the precise number of \ncomplication (admittedly only based on clinical impression). Why the Authors did not use the list of complications proposed by Copeland et al in their original POSSUM paper? It seems that they are testing a scoring system which was designed to predict a certain outcome by using a different more \nsubjective outcome endpoint, based on \"clinical impression\". Their poor POSSUM predictive ability \nmay reside in a subjective bias rather than in a failure of the system.The Author should comment on that point. 3) In the results section and subsequently throughout the text the Authors stated that they used the \nR1 equation to assess mortality. However in the Methods section the R1 equation is the one for \nmorbidity (as reported in the original Copeland study).This is a major mistake that flaw the entire manuscript and conclusions. Could the Authors give an explanation on wy they used a morbidity equation to assess mortality and viceversa. \n4) The other major problem I found difficult to accept in statistical and logical terms was the fact that \nthe Authors' grouped toghether severe complications and mortality and found that the mortality equation (?) was then well calibrated for the prediction of this \"Hybrid\" outcome.The Authors should \njustify this rather original approach which I find inappropriate. \n5)For testing their hypothesis, I think the Authors should first of all use the right equations for the \nproper outcomes (which should be better defined) 6) If the Authors want to propose a correction factor to improve the predictive ability of POSSUM in this subgroup of patients (provided there would be a discrepancy between observed and predicted \nvalues, and provided this discrepancy would be caused by an underperformance of POSSUM rather \nthan an overperformace of the surgical equipe - results better than expected) they should have performed a logistic regression analysis for morbidity and mortality by using the POSSUM PS and OSS as independent variables. Subsequently, the models should be assessed by calibration \nanalysis and validated by some form of resampling procedure (i.e. bootstrap analysis) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n-pg 10, Results section, third line from bottom: the pvalue reported (p<0.05), whta does it mean in \nthis context: that there is a significant difference whithin each group? Please verify. \npg 11, line 4 from top: What the pvalue reported herein (p=0.013) means in this context. Please explain better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
2 24 November 2004 Version: Date:
Elliott Bennett-Guerrero Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This study deals with a very important topic, i.e. mortality and major morbidity after surgery. The
manuscript is generally well organized and written.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1) Please explain why P-POSSUM was not used, as it is generally recognized as being a better
predictor than POSSUM.
2) There is no mention of there being IRB approval. Please clarify. There is no mention of there
being consent (or waiver of consent by the IRB). Please clarify.
3) The authors should be very cautious on how they interpret the results for R3 (Physiologic
POSSUM only) and adverse outcome. I am sure that in a large enough sample there would be a
statistically significant association between Physiologic POSSUM and adverse outcome. Indeed,
Figure 1 shows this “trend” towards higher Physiologic scores in patients with worse outcome. It is pretty clear that the sample size (only 137) is too small for this association to become statistically significant.
4) Related to #3, the same goes true for age, reported in this manuscript to not be a predictor of
adverse outcome. I think we all would agree that in a sufficiently powered study, one would show that increasing age is associated with adverse postoperative outcome.
4) The definitions for complications in Table 2 are unclear. Please clarify.
5) Figure 2 – the symbols do not appear to be reproducing well, as I do not see any “M” for mortality.
6) The discussion section should do a better job of outlining the limitations of this study, e.g. small
sample size, retrospective data collection, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1) If the editors wish to save space, I do not think that Table 1 adds much useful information. I would
rather that it be replaced with a table of definitions for surgical complications, since that is an
important endpoint in this study. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
Yes Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
no conflicts
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
2 24 November 2004 Version: Date:
Elliott Bennett-Guerrero Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This study deals with a very important topic, i.e. mortality and major morbidity after surgery. The
manuscript is generally well organized and written.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1) Please explain why P-POSSUM was not used, as it is generally recognized as being a better
predictor than POSSUM.
2) There is no mention of there being IRB approval. Please clarify. There is no mention of there
being consent (or waiver of consent by the IRB). Please clarify.
3) The authors should be very cautious on how they interpret the results for R3 (Physiologic
POSSUM only) and adverse outcome. I am sure that in a large enough sample there would be a
statistically significant association between Physiologic POSSUM and adverse outcome. Indeed,
Figure 1 shows this “trend” towards higher Physiologic scores in patients with worse outcome. It is pretty clear that the sample size (only 137) is too small for this association to become statistically significant.
4) Related to #3, the same goes true for age, reported in this manuscript to not be a predictor of
adverse outcome. I think we all would agree that in a sufficiently powered study, one would show that increasing age is associated with adverse postoperative outcome.
4) The definitions for complications in Table 2 are unclear. Please clarify.
5) Figure 2 – the symbols do not appear to be reproducing well, as I do not see any “M” for mortality.
6) The discussion section should do a better job of outlining the limitations of this study, e.g. small
sample size, retrospective data collection, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1) If the editors wish to save space, I do not think that Table 1 adds much useful information. I would
rather that it be replaced with a table of definitions for surgical complications, since that is an
important endpoint in this study. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
Yes Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
no conflicts
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_48_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 6,
"example": 5,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 6,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 11,
"results_and_discussion": 8,
"suggestion_and_solution": 8,
"total": 23
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2608695652173913,
"example": 0.21739130434782608,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.13043478260869565,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2608695652173913,
"praise": 0.13043478260869565,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4782608695652174,
"results_and_discussion": 0.34782608695652173,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.34782608695652173
}
| 2.173913
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title: \nD2-gastrectomy \n 2 24 November 2004 Version: Date: \n Elliott Bennett-Guerrero Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis study deals with a very important topic, i.e. mortality and major morbidity after surgery. The \nmanuscript is generally well organized and written. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n1) Please explain why P-POSSUM was not used, as it is generally recognized as being a better \npredictor than POSSUM. \n2) There is no mention of there being IRB approval. Please clarify. There is no mention of there \nbeing consent (or waiver of consent by the IRB). Please clarify. \n3) The authors should be very cautious on how they interpret the results for R3 (Physiologic \nPOSSUM only) and adverse outcome. I am sure that in a large enough sample there would be a \nstatistically significant association between Physiologic POSSUM and adverse outcome. Indeed, \nFigure 1 shows this “trend” towards higher Physiologic scores in patients with worse outcome. It is pretty clear that the sample size (only 137) is too small for this association to become statistically significant. \n4) Related to #3, the same goes true for age, reported in this manuscript to not be a predictor of \nadverse outcome. I think we all would agree that in a sufficiently powered study, one would show that increasing age is associated with adverse postoperative outcome. \n4) The definitions for complications in Table 2 are unclear. Please clarify. \n5) Figure 2 – the symbols do not appear to be reproducing well, as I do not see any “M” for mortality. \n6) The discussion section should do a better job of outlining the limitations of this study, e.g. small \nsample size, retrospective data collection, etc. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n1) If the editors wish to save space, I do not think that Table 1 adds much useful information. I would \nrather that it be replaced with a table of definitions for surgical complications, since that is an \nimportant endpoint in this study. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n Yes Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nno conflicts ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
4 9 February 2005 Version: Date:
Alessandro Brunelli Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The Authors were responsive to my previous suggestions and comments. I think the work is now
acceptable for publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
4 9 February 2005 Version: Date:
Alessandro Brunelli Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The Authors were responsive to my previous suggestions and comments. I think the work is now
acceptable for publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_48_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0.25,
"praise": 0.75,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.25
}
| 2.25
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title: \nD2-gastrectomy \n 4 9 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Alessandro Brunelli Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe Authors were responsive to my previous suggestions and comments. I think the work is now \nacceptable for publication. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-8
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
4 22 February 2005 Version: Date:
Elliott Bennett-Guerrero Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The revised manuscript is improved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) The authors should add a statement in the Methods section (assuming it is true) to the effect of
"This study did not undergo IRB review".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title:
D2-gastrectomy
4 22 February 2005 Version: Date:
Elliott Bennett-Guerrero Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The revised manuscript is improved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) The authors should add a statement in the Methods section (assuming it is true) to the effect of
"This study did not undergo IRB review".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_48_ReviewerReport_V4_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.5,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5,
"praise": 0.5,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5
}
| 3
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Evaluation of POSSUM scoring system in patients with gastric cancer undergoing Title: \nD2-gastrectomy \n 4 22 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Elliott Bennett-Guerrero Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe revised manuscript is improved. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n1) The authors should add a statement in the Methods section (assuming it is true) to the effect of \n\"This study did not undergo IRB review\". \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
1 10 February 2005 Version: Date:
Michael D'Angelica Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
an interesting paper that addresses an important topic. My major problem with the paper is that the
authors include a very broad definition of benign liver lesions. Diseases such as hydatid cysts, caroli's disease and sclerosing cholangitis have very unique problems that differ greatly from the
standard collection of benign tumors including FNH, liver cell adenoma and hemagioma. I also think
the authors should provide more details about the specific symptoms with each diagnosis and the
indication for surgery by diagnosis, as each diagnosis has a different set of clinical issues associated
with them (e.g. some believe all adenomas should be resected regardless of symptoms,
hemangioms are felt to rarely be symptomatic). Lastly, papers like this, that focus only on resected
patients leave out a large group of patients that are followed expectantly and give us a sense of just how rare these tumors are symptomatic. IF the authors have any information on this it would add a lot of strength to the paper (I realize that these data are often impossible to find in standard hospital
databases).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Please report the specific symptoms for each diagnosis.
Would strongly consider leaving out hydatis cysts, Caroli's disease and sclerosing cholangitis from
this paper. These diagnoses have very specific issues associated with them and do not 'lump' well
into a paper about benign liver tumors.
Why leave out the 13 patients who underwent pericystectomy for hydatid disease - see above -
would recommend leaving out this whole group of patients.
Would consider stating general philsophy of the authors regarding resection of benign tumors in the
methods (in addition to the discussion) as this sets the stage for the results. (e.g. resection of all
adenomas regardless of symptoms if they are greater than 5 cm)
Any attempt at describing the denominator of patients with benign liver lesions that were followed
expectantly during this time period would strengthen the paper tremendously (i understand this may
not be possible)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Must explain why a patient required a choledochojejunostomy post-operatively. was this a bile duct
injury or someone who had biliary surgery?
A reoperation to remove gauzes must also be explained in more detail. Was this massive
intraoperative hemorrhage. If so, what was the diagnosis and the intraoperative situation.
Post-operative liver failure should also be explained. Was this simply failure of liver regeneration or
a technical error.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have not competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
1 10 February 2005 Version: Date:
Michael D'Angelica Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
an interesting paper that addresses an important topic. My major problem with the paper is that the
authors include a very broad definition of benign liver lesions. Diseases such as hydatid cysts, caroli's disease and sclerosing cholangitis have very unique problems that differ greatly from the
standard collection of benign tumors including FNH, liver cell adenoma and hemagioma. I also think
the authors should provide more details about the specific symptoms with each diagnosis and the
indication for surgery by diagnosis, as each diagnosis has a different set of clinical issues associated
with them (e.g. some believe all adenomas should be resected regardless of symptoms,
hemangioms are felt to rarely be symptomatic). Lastly, papers like this, that focus only on resected
patients leave out a large group of patients that are followed expectantly and give us a sense of just how rare these tumors are symptomatic. IF the authors have any information on this it would add a lot of strength to the paper (I realize that these data are often impossible to find in standard hospital
databases).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Please report the specific symptoms for each diagnosis.
Would strongly consider leaving out hydatis cysts, Caroli's disease and sclerosing cholangitis from
this paper. These diagnoses have very specific issues associated with them and do not 'lump' well
into a paper about benign liver tumors.
Why leave out the 13 patients who underwent pericystectomy for hydatid disease - see above -
would recommend leaving out this whole group of patients.
Would consider stating general philsophy of the authors regarding resection of benign tumors in the
methods (in addition to the discussion) as this sets the stage for the results. (e.g. resection of all
adenomas regardless of symptoms if they are greater than 5 cm)
Any attempt at describing the denominator of patients with benign liver lesions that were followed
expectantly during this time period would strengthen the paper tremendously (i understand this may
not be possible)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Must explain why a patient required a choledochojejunostomy post-operatively. was this a bile duct
injury or someone who had biliary surgery?
A reoperation to remove gauzes must also be explained in more detail. Was this massive
intraoperative hemorrhage. If so, what was the diagnosis and the intraoperative situation.
Post-operative liver failure should also be explained. Was this simply failure of liver regeneration or
a technical error.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have not competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_47_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 4,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 8,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 11,
"total": 22
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.09090909090909091,
"example": 0.09090909090909091,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.09090909090909091,
"materials_and_methods": 0.18181818181818182,
"praise": 0.09090909090909091,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.36363636363636365,
"results_and_discussion": 0.09090909090909091,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5
}
| 1.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title: \n 1 10 February 2005 Version: Date: \n Michael D'Angelica Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nan interesting paper that addresses an important topic. My major problem with the paper is that the \nauthors include a very broad definition of benign liver lesions. Diseases such as hydatid cysts, caroli's disease and sclerosing cholangitis have very unique problems that differ greatly from the \nstandard collection of benign tumors including FNH, liver cell adenoma and hemagioma. I also think \nthe authors should provide more details about the specific symptoms with each diagnosis and the \nindication for surgery by diagnosis, as each diagnosis has a different set of clinical issues associated \nwith them (e.g. some believe all adenomas should be resected regardless of symptoms, \nhemangioms are felt to rarely be symptomatic). Lastly, papers like this, that focus only on resected \npatients leave out a large group of patients that are followed expectantly and give us a sense of just how rare these tumors are symptomatic. IF the authors have any information on this it would add a lot of strength to the paper (I realize that these data are often impossible to find in standard hospital \ndatabases). \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nPlease report the specific symptoms for each diagnosis. \nWould strongly consider leaving out hydatis cysts, Caroli's disease and sclerosing cholangitis from \nthis paper. These diagnoses have very specific issues associated with them and do not 'lump' well \ninto a paper about benign liver tumors. \nWhy leave out the 13 patients who underwent pericystectomy for hydatid disease - see above - \nwould recommend leaving out this whole group of patients. \nWould consider stating general philsophy of the authors regarding resection of benign tumors in the \nmethods (in addition to the discussion) as this sets the stage for the results. (e.g. resection of all \nadenomas regardless of symptoms if they are greater than 5 cm) \nAny attempt at describing the denominator of patients with benign liver lesions that were followed \nexpectantly during this time period would strengthen the paper tremendously (i understand this may \nnot be possible) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nMust explain why a patient required a choledochojejunostomy post-operatively. was this a bile duct \ninjury or someone who had biliary surgery? \nA reoperation to remove gauzes must also be explained in more detail. Was this massive \nintraoperative hemorrhage. If so, what was the diagnosis and the intraoperative situation. \nPost-operative liver failure should also be explained. Was this simply failure of liver regeneration or \na technical error. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have not competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
1 28 February 2005 Version: Date:
David Geller Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In this paper, the authors provide long-term f/u (median f/u 4.3 yrs) on symptom relief in a series of
35 liver resections performed for benign indications. 83% of patients had symptoms (mainly pain) and 91% of those had improvement by the openliver resection procedure. While the current study does not provide any earth-shattering novelty with regards to hepatic surgery, it does represent
useful information in providing an honest assessment of peri-operative morbidity/mortality, and
long-term f/u of symptoms. The study raises several issues that should be addressed:
1. The authors should elaborate in the discussion on the mortality, especially since a 2nd patient
died of what sounds like a biliary complication that may have been related to the procedure. Given
the young median age of this series of patients (age 41), essentially a "0" mortality should be the goal, especially when the indications are for benign disease.
2. One issue that always comes up whne operating for pain is whether the the pain is actually from
the hepatic mass, and whether this will resolve following surgery. Were additional patients screened that were not offered surgery due to the surgeons concern about pain etiology ? How were the patients counseled preoperatively with regards to expectations for post-op symptoms ?
3. Many of these hepatic resections for benign disease are now being done by Laparoscopic liver
resection techniques. Can the authors comment if they have integrated the minimally invasive techniques inot their practice ?
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate
the work? yes
3. Are the data sound and well controlled? Sound data, not controlled study 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition? yes 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? yes
6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? yes
7. Is the writing acceptable? yes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
1 28 February 2005 Version: Date:
David Geller Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In this paper, the authors provide long-term f/u (median f/u 4.3 yrs) on symptom relief in a series of
35 liver resections performed for benign indications. 83% of patients had symptoms (mainly pain) and 91% of those had improvement by the openliver resection procedure. While the current study does not provide any earth-shattering novelty with regards to hepatic surgery, it does represent
useful information in providing an honest assessment of peri-operative morbidity/mortality, and
long-term f/u of symptoms. The study raises several issues that should be addressed:
1. The authors should elaborate in the discussion on the mortality, especially since a 2nd patient
died of what sounds like a biliary complication that may have been related to the procedure. Given
the young median age of this series of patients (age 41), essentially a "0" mortality should be the goal, especially when the indications are for benign disease.
2. One issue that always comes up whne operating for pain is whether the the pain is actually from
the hepatic mass, and whether this will resolve following surgery. Were additional patients screened that were not offered surgery due to the surgeons concern about pain etiology ? How were the patients counseled preoperatively with regards to expectations for post-op symptoms ?
3. Many of these hepatic resections for benign disease are now being done by Laparoscopic liver
resection techniques. Can the authors comment if they have integrated the minimally invasive techniques inot their practice ?
1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate
the work? yes
3. Are the data sound and well controlled? Sound data, not controlled study 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition? yes 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? yes
6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? yes
7. Is the writing acceptable? yes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_47_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 13,
"praise": 3,
"presentation_and_reporting": 4,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 28
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.03571428571428571,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.03571428571428571,
"materials_and_methods": 0.4642857142857143,
"praise": 0.10714285714285714,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.14285714285714285,
"results_and_discussion": 0.07142857142857142,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.14285714285714285
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title: \n 1 28 February 2005 Version: Date: \n David Geller Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nIn this paper, the authors provide long-term f/u (median f/u 4.3 yrs) on symptom relief in a series of \n35 liver resections performed for benign indications. 83% of patients had symptoms (mainly pain) and 91% of those had improvement by the openliver resection procedure. While the current study does not provide any earth-shattering novelty with regards to hepatic surgery, it does represent \nuseful information in providing an honest assessment of peri-operative morbidity/mortality, and \nlong-term f/u of symptoms. The study raises several issues that should be addressed: \n1. The authors should elaborate in the discussion on the mortality, especially since a 2nd patient \ndied of what sounds like a biliary complication that may have been related to the procedure. Given \nthe young median age of this series of patients (age 41), essentially a \"0\" mortality should be the goal, especially when the indications are for benign disease. \n2. One issue that always comes up whne operating for pain is whether the the pain is actually from \nthe hepatic mass, and whether this will resolve following surgery. Were additional patients screened that were not offered surgery due to the surgeons concern about pain etiology ? How were the patients counseled preoperatively with regards to expectations for post-op symptoms ? \n3. Many of these hepatic resections for benign disease are now being done by Laparoscopic liver \nresection techniques. Can the authors comment if they have integrated the minimally invasive techniques inot their practice ? \n1. Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined? yes \n2. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate \nthe work? yes \n3. Are the data sound and well controlled? Sound data, not controlled study 4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition? yes 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data? yes \n6. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? yes \n7. Is the writing acceptable? yes \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
3 21 March 2005 Version: Date:
David Geller Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In this paper, the authors provide long-term f/u (median f/u 4.3 yrs) on symptom relief in a series of
liver resections performed for benign indications.
The revised paper is improved and I recommend accepting in its current form.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
3 21 March 2005 Version: Date:
David Geller Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
In this paper, the authors provide long-term f/u (median f/u 4.3 yrs) on symptom relief in a series of
liver resections performed for benign indications.
The revised paper is improved and I recommend accepting in its current form.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_47_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6666666666666666
}
| 1.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title: \n 3 21 March 2005 Version: Date: \n David Geller Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nIn this paper, the authors provide long-term f/u (median f/u 4.3 yrs) on symptom relief in a series of \nliver resections performed for benign indications. \nThe revised paper is improved and I recommend accepting in its current form. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-7
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
3 22 March 2005 Version: Date:
Michael D'Angelica Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have addressed all concerns and changed the paper accordingly. It reads very well and
addresses the study question. I recommend this be accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title:
3 22 March 2005 Version: Date:
Michael D'Angelica Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
The authors have addressed all concerns and changed the paper accordingly. It reads very well and
addresses the study question. I recommend this be accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2005_47_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 4,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.8,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Adequate symptom relief justifies hepatic resection for benign disease Title: \n 3 22 March 2005 Version: Date: \n Michael D'Angelica Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThe authors have addressed all concerns and changed the paper accordingly. It reads very well and \naddresses the study question. I recommend this be accepted. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-6
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
2 26 April 2004 Version: Date:
J. Eric Gordon Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Overall an interesting paper with a description of a useful technique. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
The third paragraph in the discussion should be deleted or sumarized in a concise way without the
hyperbole. In the same way the referrences to the pyramids are not appropriate. Figure 3 should have the child's face blocked out or in some way made unidentifiable. Please include data on patient age (mean and range) and reccomendations on what ages or weights are appropriate for this
technique. Also please include information on the sizes of K-wires used and what criteria are used to
select sizes. Also, in the conclusion, "Averagely" is not a word. Please reword with some statement
such as "for an orthopaedic surgeon without advanced training". Also please delete most of the referrences to yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
2 26 April 2004 Version: Date:
J. Eric Gordon Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Overall an interesting paper with a description of a useful technique. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
The third paragraph in the discussion should be deleted or sumarized in a concise way without the
hyperbole. In the same way the referrences to the pyramids are not appropriate. Figure 3 should have the child's face blocked out or in some way made unidentifiable. Please include data on patient age (mean and range) and reccomendations on what ages or weights are appropriate for this
technique. Also please include information on the sizes of K-wires used and what criteria are used to
select sizes. Also, in the conclusion, "Averagely" is not a word. Please reword with some statement
such as "for an orthopaedic surgeon without advanced training". Also please delete most of the referrences to yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_46_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 8,
"results_and_discussion": 3,
"suggestion_and_solution": 7,
"total": 12
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.16666666666666666,
"example": 0.3333333333333333,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0.25,
"praise": 0.16666666666666666,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6666666666666666,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5833333333333334
}
| 2.666667
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title: \nprospective study): Its significance for developing countries. \n 2 26 April 2004 Version: Date: \n J. Eric Gordon Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nOverall an interesting paper with a description of a useful technique. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nThe third paragraph in the discussion should be deleted or sumarized in a concise way without the \nhyperbole. In the same way the referrences to the pyramids are not appropriate. Figure 3 should have the child's face blocked out or in some way made unidentifiable. Please include data on patient age (mean and range) and reccomendations on what ages or weights are appropriate for this \ntechnique. Also please include information on the sizes of K-wires used and what criteria are used to \nselect sizes. Also, in the conclusion, \"Averagely\" is not a word. Please reword with some statement \nsuch as \"for an orthopaedic surgeon without advanced training\". Also please delete most of the referrences to yourself. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-6
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
2 11 June 2004 Version: Date:
Israel Dudkiewicz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General the article is written well although it might be written little more sharp and short.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)I miss the information of contraindication or were there any others children that were
treated conservatively and if thre were, what were the results of the treatnent in comparison to the suggested one. In the abstract it is said that there are no complications, but in the article there are some minors, it
should be checked again and should be rephrase more correctly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
I would move the the patient data (e.g age etc) to the material and methods instead of in the results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
2 11 June 2004 Version: Date:
Israel Dudkiewicz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General the article is written well although it might be written little more sharp and short.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)I miss the information of contraindication or were there any others children that were
treated conservatively and if thre were, what were the results of the treatnent in comparison to the suggested one. In the abstract it is said that there are no complications, but in the article there are some minors, it
should be checked again and should be rephrase more correctly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
I would move the the patient data (e.g age etc) to the material and methods instead of in the results
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_46_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 2,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.4,
"example": 0.4,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0.4,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4
}
| 2.8
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title: \nprospective study): Its significance for developing countries. \n 2 11 June 2004 Version: Date: \n Israel Dudkiewicz Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral the article is written well although it might be written little more sharp and short. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached)I miss the information of contraindication or were there any others children that were \ntreated conservatively and if thre were, what were the results of the treatnent in comparison to the suggested one. In the abstract it is said that there are no complications, but in the article there are some minors, it \nshould be checked again and should be rephrase more correctly \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nI would move the the patient data (e.g age etc) to the material and methods instead of in the results \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-6
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
2 29 June 2004 Version: Date:
susan stott Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This paper describes the results of intrameduallary fixation of 17 femoral shaft fractures in 16 children aged 2 to 15 years. The results are stated to be ‘successful surgeries with minimum blood loss’ with ‘all fractures united in 7.5 weeks’. The length of follow-up is not specifically stated but is
short term with all ‘children discharged from orthopaedic care at 15.93 weeks’. Relatively few results
are given and those that are presented are surely a mean or average, although they are not reported
in this way. For example, I presume the author means that the children were discharged an average
of 15. 93 weeks after ?surgery (range * weeks to * weeks). In contrast the conclusions are wide
ranging and not always supported by the data eg the statement ‘less psychological trauma to
children and parents” may be what we believe but there is no psychological assessment data presented to support that statement. Similar comments apply to the conclusions that ‘gives a more predictable result than conservative means’, ‘subsequent hospital visits and repeated Xray
exposures are reduced’ . These are again personal beliefs – comparison data for children with
similar fractures treated conservatively in the author’s institution is required before these statements can be made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) (a) The paper is written in a colloquial style and I think needs to be extensively re-written to remove personal comments and anecdotes (eg section3 background; results section, discussion). I suggest
the author consults a colleague more experienced in writing articles for publication
(b) The abstract is too long and needs to be shortened. The age of the children should be included in
the abstract. The results are presented to two decimal places, which is inappropriate for this type of
data, 15.93 weeks should be 16 weeks. The conclusions in the abstract are very broad and not
always justified by the data presented -
(c) Background. This section has been written as a personal biography. It should be a comprehensive literature review of previous studies relating to conservative and surgical management of paediatric fractures, followed by the reasons for doing the current study.
(d) Materials and Methods. Needs to be shortened considerably. Some of the results are presented
in the methods section (page 7, under postoperative rehabilitation ) and need to be removed and added to the Results section (e) Results section. A variety of results are presented all as averages with no indication of the
ranges. Many of the Tables in the results section are in fact not results but the patient demographics
eg side fractured, sex distribution, type of injury. As the group is diverse in age, type of fracture etc
and only a small number, I would suggest making a single table that contains the relevant information
for each patient eg age, sex, side of fracture, closed vs open injury, , hospital stay, complications
and length to union.
(f) Discussion needs to be rewritten to focus around the results in this small group of patients and
avoid general comments about litigation, lifestyle today etc, which represent the opinion of the author
rather than findings of the study.
(g) The conclusions need to be shortened and again focused on the results of this study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
2 29 June 2004 Version: Date:
susan stott Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This paper describes the results of intrameduallary fixation of 17 femoral shaft fractures in 16 children aged 2 to 15 years. The results are stated to be ‘successful surgeries with minimum blood loss’ with ‘all fractures united in 7.5 weeks’. The length of follow-up is not specifically stated but is
short term with all ‘children discharged from orthopaedic care at 15.93 weeks’. Relatively few results
are given and those that are presented are surely a mean or average, although they are not reported
in this way. For example, I presume the author means that the children were discharged an average
of 15. 93 weeks after ?surgery (range * weeks to * weeks). In contrast the conclusions are wide
ranging and not always supported by the data eg the statement ‘less psychological trauma to
children and parents” may be what we believe but there is no psychological assessment data presented to support that statement. Similar comments apply to the conclusions that ‘gives a more predictable result than conservative means’, ‘subsequent hospital visits and repeated Xray
exposures are reduced’ . These are again personal beliefs – comparison data for children with
similar fractures treated conservatively in the author’s institution is required before these statements can be made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) (a) The paper is written in a colloquial style and I think needs to be extensively re-written to remove personal comments and anecdotes (eg section3 background; results section, discussion). I suggest
the author consults a colleague more experienced in writing articles for publication
(b) The abstract is too long and needs to be shortened. The age of the children should be included in
the abstract. The results are presented to two decimal places, which is inappropriate for this type of
data, 15.93 weeks should be 16 weeks. The conclusions in the abstract are very broad and not
always justified by the data presented -
(c) Background. This section has been written as a personal biography. It should be a comprehensive literature review of previous studies relating to conservative and surgical management of paediatric fractures, followed by the reasons for doing the current study.
(d) Materials and Methods. Needs to be shortened considerably. Some of the results are presented
in the methods section (page 7, under postoperative rehabilitation ) and need to be removed and added to the Results section (e) Results section. A variety of results are presented all as averages with no indication of the
ranges. Many of the Tables in the results section are in fact not results but the patient demographics
eg side fractured, sex distribution, type of injury. As the group is diverse in age, type of fracture etc
and only a small number, I would suggest making a single table that contains the relevant information
for each patient eg age, sex, side of fracture, closed vs open injury, , hospital stay, complications
and length to union.
(f) Discussion needs to be rewritten to focus around the results in this small group of patients and
avoid general comments about litigation, lifestyle today etc, which represent the opinion of the author
rather than findings of the study.
(g) The conclusions need to be shortened and again focused on the results of this study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_46_ReviewerReport_V2_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 4,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 9,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 13,
"results_and_discussion": 12,
"suggestion_and_solution": 12,
"total": 27
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.14814814814814814,
"example": 0.14814814814814814,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.07407407407407407,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.48148148148148145,
"results_and_discussion": 0.4444444444444444,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4444444444444444
}
| 2.074074
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title: \nprospective study): Its significance for developing countries. \n 2 29 June 2004 Version: Date: \n susan stott Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis paper describes the results of intrameduallary fixation of 17 femoral shaft fractures in 16 children aged 2 to 15 years. The results are stated to be ‘successful surgeries with minimum blood loss’ with ‘all fractures united in 7.5 weeks’. The length of follow-up is not specifically stated but is \nshort term with all ‘children discharged from orthopaedic care at 15.93 weeks’. Relatively few results \nare given and those that are presented are surely a mean or average, although they are not reported \nin this way. For example, I presume the author means that the children were discharged an average \nof 15. 93 weeks after ?surgery (range * weeks to * weeks). In contrast the conclusions are wide \nranging and not always supported by the data eg the statement ‘less psychological trauma to \nchildren and parents” may be what we believe but there is no psychological assessment data presented to support that statement. Similar comments apply to the conclusions that ‘gives a more predictable result than conservative means’, ‘subsequent hospital visits and repeated Xray \nexposures are reduced’ . These are again personal beliefs – comparison data for children with \nsimilar fractures treated conservatively in the author’s institution is required before these statements can be made. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) (a) The paper is written in a colloquial style and I think needs to be extensively re-written to remove personal comments and anecdotes (eg section3 background; results section, discussion). I suggest \nthe author consults a colleague more experienced in writing articles for publication \n(b) The abstract is too long and needs to be shortened. The age of the children should be included in \nthe abstract. The results are presented to two decimal places, which is inappropriate for this type of \ndata, 15.93 weeks should be 16 weeks. The conclusions in the abstract are very broad and not \nalways justified by the data presented - \n(c) Background. This section has been written as a personal biography. It should be a comprehensive literature review of previous studies relating to conservative and surgical management of paediatric fractures, followed by the reasons for doing the current study. \n(d) Materials and Methods. Needs to be shortened considerably. Some of the results are presented \nin the methods section (page 7, under postoperative rehabilitation ) and need to be removed and added to the Results section (e) Results section. A variety of results are presented all as averages with no indication of the \nranges. Many of the Tables in the results section are in fact not results but the patient demographics \neg side fractured, sex distribution, type of injury. As the group is diverse in age, type of fracture etc \nand only a small number, I would suggest making a single table that contains the relevant information \nfor each patient eg age, sex, side of fracture, closed vs open injury, , hospital stay, complications \nand length to union. \n(f) Discussion needs to be rewritten to focus around the results in this small group of patients and \navoid general comments about litigation, lifestyle today etc, which represent the opinion of the author \nrather than findings of the study. \n(g) The conclusions need to be shortened and again focused on the results of this study. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-6
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
5 19 November 2004 Version: Date:
Israel Dudkiewicz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General the article is now well written.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) - none
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) - none
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
5 19 November 2004 Version: Date:
Israel Dudkiewicz Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General the article is now well written.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached) - none
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct) - none
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept without revision What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_46_ReviewerReport_V5_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.25,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.25,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.25,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1.25
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title: \nprospective study): Its significance for developing countries. \n 5 19 November 2004 Version: Date: \n Israel Dudkiewicz Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral the article is now well written. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) - none \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) - none \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept without revision What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-6
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
5 27 November 2004 Version: Date:
susan stott Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
(a) Although the paper has been improved, I still believe that the Background and Discussion sections require more work. The Background section should be a comprehensive literature review of previous studies relating to conservative and surgical management of paediatric femoral fractures.
At the moment, very little information is provided for the reader in the Background section. The
Discussion section should be more focussed around the results of this study and how the authors
results compare to other studies of elastic nail / K wire fixation in paediatric femoral fractures. Some of the current discussion could be moved to the background section.
(b) I still believe that a single Table with the relevent information on age, gender, side of fracture,
location of fracture, open vs closed fracture, length of hospital stay, complications and length to union would be helpful for the reader.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests’
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
5 27 November 2004 Version: Date:
susan stott Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
(a) Although the paper has been improved, I still believe that the Background and Discussion sections require more work. The Background section should be a comprehensive literature review of previous studies relating to conservative and surgical management of paediatric femoral fractures.
At the moment, very little information is provided for the reader in the Background section. The
Discussion section should be more focussed around the results of this study and how the authors
results compare to other studies of elastic nail / K wire fixation in paediatric femoral fractures. Some of the current discussion could be moved to the background section.
(b) I still believe that a single Table with the relevent information on age, gender, side of fracture,
location of fracture, open vs closed fracture, length of hospital stay, complications and length to union would be helpful for the reader.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests’
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_46_ReviewerReport_V5_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 4,
"results_and_discussion": 3,
"suggestion_and_solution": 6,
"total": 9
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.1111111111111111,
"example": 0.1111111111111111,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.4444444444444444,
"results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6666666666666666
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title: \nprospective study): Its significance for developing countries. \n 5 27 November 2004 Version: Date: \n susan stott Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n(a) Although the paper has been improved, I still believe that the Background and Discussion sections require more work. The Background section should be a comprehensive literature review of previous studies relating to conservative and surgical management of paediatric femoral fractures. \nAt the moment, very little information is provided for the reader in the Background section. The \nDiscussion section should be more focussed around the results of this study and how the authors \nresults compare to other studies of elastic nail / K wire fixation in paediatric femoral fractures. Some of the current discussion could be moved to the background section. \n(b) I still believe that a single Table with the relevent information on age, gender, side of fracture, \nlocation of fracture, open vs closed fracture, length of hospital stay, complications and length to union would be helpful for the reader. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests’",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-6
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
7 2 February 2005 Version: Date:
susan stott Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered all my questions and I have no further changes to request.
|
Reviewer's report
Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title:
prospective study): Its significance for developing countries.
7 2 February 2005 Version: Date:
susan stott Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
The authors have answered all my questions and I have no further changes to request.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_46_ReviewerReport_V7_R3.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.5,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.5,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Internal fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children by Intramedullary Kirschner wires (A Title: \nprospective study): Its significance for developing countries. \n 7 2 February 2005 Version: Date: \n susan stott Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nThe authors have answered all my questions and I have no further changes to request. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-5
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis Title:
1 18 January 2005 Version: Date:
Tarik Zafer Nursal Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
There are none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
1. Throuhout the text the term "cholecystitis" is used. When the history is taken into account, it
seems that the patient had "acute cholecystitis" which is then cooled for further cholecystectomy.
This should be changed.
2. p.3 1st sentence, situs inversus should be written in lower case characters. 3. p.3 1st paragraph, the syndrome should spell " Kartagener's syndrome".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis Title:
1 18 January 2005 Version: Date:
Tarik Zafer Nursal Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
There are none
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
1. Throuhout the text the term "cholecystitis" is used. When the history is taken into account, it
seems that the patient had "acute cholecystitis" which is then cooled for further cholecystectomy.
This should be changed.
2. p.3 1st sentence, situs inversus should be written in lower case characters. 3. p.3 1st paragraph, the syndrome should spell " Kartagener's syndrome".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_45_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 5,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 8
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.375,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.125,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.125,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.625,
"results_and_discussion": 0.125,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.375
}
| 1.75
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis Title: \n 1 18 January 2005 Version: Date: \n Tarik Zafer Nursal Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nThere are none \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n1. Throuhout the text the term \"cholecystitis\" is used. When the history is taken into account, it \nseems that the patient had \"acute cholecystitis\" which is then cooled for further cholecystectomy. \nThis should be changed. \n2. p.3 1st sentence, situs inversus should be written in lower case characters. 3. p.3 1st paragraph, the syndrome should spell \" Kartagener's syndrome\". \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nI declare that I have no competing interests ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-5
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis Title:
1 3 March 2005 Version: Date:
Manuel Trias Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)pag 4: "primary surgeon", "primary operatori", "second assistant", haw mwny surgeons
were oeprate the patient ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
no
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis Title:
1 3 March 2005 Version: Date:
Manuel Trias Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)pag 4: "primary surgeon", "primary operatori", "second assistant", haw mwny surgeons
were oeprate the patient ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after discretionary revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
no
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_45_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.6666666666666666,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.3333333333333333,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6666666666666666,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.3333333333333333
}
| 2.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Situs Inversus Totalis Title: \n 1 3 March 2005 Version: Date: \n Manuel Trias Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)pag 4: \"primary surgeon\", \"primary operatori\", \"second assistant\", haw mwny surgeons \nwere oeprate the patient ? \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after discretionary revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nno ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-4
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Necrotic gangrenous intrathoracic appendix in a marfanoid adult patient. A case report Title:
1 8 November 2004 Version: Date:
Robert Sawyer Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1) The discussion is rather short. Move background material to discussion
2) More data regarding the Marfan's angle needs to be supplied. Did she have Marfan's, or was she
just tall and thin? Family history? Genetic testing?
3) Is there a relationship between Marfan's and diaphragmatic hernias?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) None
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Necrotic gangrenous intrathoracic appendix in a marfanoid adult patient. A case report Title:
1 8 November 2004 Version: Date:
Robert Sawyer Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
1) The discussion is rather short. Move background material to discussion
2) More data regarding the Marfan's angle needs to be supplied. Did she have Marfan's, or was she
just tall and thin? Family history? Genetic testing?
3) Is there a relationship between Marfan's and diaphragmatic hernias?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) None
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_44_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 2,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 8
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.125,
"example": 0.125,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.25,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.25,
"results_and_discussion": 0.25,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.125
}
| 1.125
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Necrotic gangrenous intrathoracic appendix in a marfanoid adult patient. A case report Title: \n 1 8 November 2004 Version: Date: \n Robert Sawyer Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n1) The discussion is rather short. Move background material to discussion \n2) More data regarding the Marfan's angle needs to be supplied. Did she have Marfan's, or was she \njust tall and thin? Family history? Genetic testing? \n3) Is there a relationship between Marfan's and diaphragmatic hernias? \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nNone \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) None \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections and the Factors Involved: a descriptive correlational study Title:
1 1 June 2004 Version: Date:
Christopher Hollenbeak Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Razavi et al. seek to describe the rates of abdominal surgical site infections at a teaching hospital in
Iran, and identify factors associated with these infections.
The major strength of the paper is the fact that the authors provide data from Iran, a geographic area
that is underrepresented in the surgical site infection literature.
The primary limitations include an incomplete analysis of the data and awkward language that
distracts from the importance of the data.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1. Consider changing “aims at determining the factors…” to “aims to
determine risk factors…”
Also, the phrase “Iran’s leading teaching hospital” sounds like a marketing phrase. Please say “a
major teaching hospital in Iran” or something similar. This should also be changed on Page 7 (Line
4)
Page 8, Paragraph 1, Line 12. Note that all variables are quantitative. You should state that
continuous variables were compared using Student’s t test and categorical variables were compared
using a chi-square test. Given the relatively large sample size there is no need to use Fisher’s exact test.
Table 5. Did all patients get antibiotic prophylaxis? If not, add another column for “None”. This table
should have a single p-value since if patients did not get cefazolin, for example, they got something else. Thus the comparison should be across all treatments and not pairwise comparisons.
For the analysis, consider a multivariate analysis using logistic regression that assesses risk of
infections controlling for all independent variables at the same time.
Please describe how outcomes, particularly mortality, were affected by the development of these
infections.
The conclusions should be revised to reflect what was learned from the current data set. What was
the overall rate of infection, and what were the risk factors? How did the infections impact
outcomes?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 2. Drop the phrase “descriptive-analytic”. Also, change the phrase “the
relations between dependent and independent variables were analyzed…” to “the relationships
between variables were analyzed…”
Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 2. Please use parentheses instead of square brackets to report
percentages. Reserve square brackets for in-text citations. This will need to be changed throughout.
In line 10, change “correlated” to “associated” and state that the p-values were less than or equal to
0.001.
Page 4, Paragraph 3. Revise the conclusion paragraph to make it more informative.
Page 5, Paragraph 1, Line 2. All in-text citations need to go before punctuation. So, for example, the
first sentence should read “…14-16 percent of inpatient infections [1].” This is inconsistent and
needs to be checked throughout.
Page 6. Please change this bulleted list to a single, readable paragraph. Provide a reference for the
Kruise citation. With respect to steroids, please state that the use of steroids increases the infection
rate by 9 percentage points. A change from 7% to 16% is a change of 129%, and 9 percentage
points.
Page 7, Line 4. Please change “Iran leading teaching hospital”. Also, I believe Khomeini is
misspelled. In Line 5 please omit “correlational” and “leading”.
Page 7, Line 8. There is no need to describe the initial power calculation. Simply state that 884
patients were recruited for the study and 82 were excluded, along with exclusion criteria.
Page 7, Line 16. Dependant should be spelled Dependent. In Line 18, drop “[effective factors]” Drop
the last line on Page 7 as the data collection tool is not a survey that needs validation.
Please move all tables to the end of the paper, with each table occupying its own page.
Table 1. Change “Percentage” to “Percent”.
Page numbering stops at page 10. Please continue for all pages.
Page 12, Paragraph 1, Last line. It is not clear to which argument you are referring.
Page 12, Paragraph 2, :Last line. Consider changing “ponder upon” to “consider” or drop this
sentence altogether.
Page 12, Paragraph 3, Line 4. It is generally understood that statistical analyses do not “prove”
anything. Consider changing “proved” to “suggested that”.
Page 13. Page numbering starts over at 2. Please correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Title: Consider changing the title to capitalize on the uniqueness of the data. Something like,
“Abdominal surgical site infections: Incidence and risk factors at an Iranian teaching hospital.” At the
very least, “Factors involved” needs to be changed to suggest risk factors, and “descriptive
correlational study” needs to be dropped as it does not describe the analysis.
Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1. Consider rearranging the first sentence to read “Abdominal surgical site
infections are among the most common infections aggravating inpatient admissions and have
serious consequences for outcomes, hospital stay, and costs.” In addition, change “e.g.” to “including”.
Page 9, Paragraphs 1 and 2. It is conventional not to start a sentence with a number. Consider
rewriting these sentences or writing out the numbers.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections and the Factors Involved: a descriptive correlational study Title:
1 1 June 2004 Version: Date:
Christopher Hollenbeak Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Razavi et al. seek to describe the rates of abdominal surgical site infections at a teaching hospital in
Iran, and identify factors associated with these infections.
The major strength of the paper is the fact that the authors provide data from Iran, a geographic area
that is underrepresented in the surgical site infection literature.
The primary limitations include an incomplete analysis of the data and awkward language that
distracts from the importance of the data.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1. Consider changing “aims at determining the factors…” to “aims to
determine risk factors…”
Also, the phrase “Iran’s leading teaching hospital” sounds like a marketing phrase. Please say “a
major teaching hospital in Iran” or something similar. This should also be changed on Page 7 (Line
4)
Page 8, Paragraph 1, Line 12. Note that all variables are quantitative. You should state that
continuous variables were compared using Student’s t test and categorical variables were compared
using a chi-square test. Given the relatively large sample size there is no need to use Fisher’s exact test.
Table 5. Did all patients get antibiotic prophylaxis? If not, add another column for “None”. This table
should have a single p-value since if patients did not get cefazolin, for example, they got something else. Thus the comparison should be across all treatments and not pairwise comparisons.
For the analysis, consider a multivariate analysis using logistic regression that assesses risk of
infections controlling for all independent variables at the same time.
Please describe how outcomes, particularly mortality, were affected by the development of these
infections.
The conclusions should be revised to reflect what was learned from the current data set. What was
the overall rate of infection, and what were the risk factors? How did the infections impact
outcomes?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 2. Drop the phrase “descriptive-analytic”. Also, change the phrase “the
relations between dependent and independent variables were analyzed…” to “the relationships
between variables were analyzed…”
Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 2. Please use parentheses instead of square brackets to report
percentages. Reserve square brackets for in-text citations. This will need to be changed throughout.
In line 10, change “correlated” to “associated” and state that the p-values were less than or equal to
0.001.
Page 4, Paragraph 3. Revise the conclusion paragraph to make it more informative.
Page 5, Paragraph 1, Line 2. All in-text citations need to go before punctuation. So, for example, the
first sentence should read “…14-16 percent of inpatient infections [1].” This is inconsistent and
needs to be checked throughout.
Page 6. Please change this bulleted list to a single, readable paragraph. Provide a reference for the
Kruise citation. With respect to steroids, please state that the use of steroids increases the infection
rate by 9 percentage points. A change from 7% to 16% is a change of 129%, and 9 percentage
points.
Page 7, Line 4. Please change “Iran leading teaching hospital”. Also, I believe Khomeini is
misspelled. In Line 5 please omit “correlational” and “leading”.
Page 7, Line 8. There is no need to describe the initial power calculation. Simply state that 884
patients were recruited for the study and 82 were excluded, along with exclusion criteria.
Page 7, Line 16. Dependant should be spelled Dependent. In Line 18, drop “[effective factors]” Drop
the last line on Page 7 as the data collection tool is not a survey that needs validation.
Please move all tables to the end of the paper, with each table occupying its own page.
Table 1. Change “Percentage” to “Percent”.
Page numbering stops at page 10. Please continue for all pages.
Page 12, Paragraph 1, Last line. It is not clear to which argument you are referring.
Page 12, Paragraph 2, :Last line. Consider changing “ponder upon” to “consider” or drop this
sentence altogether.
Page 12, Paragraph 3, Line 4. It is generally understood that statistical analyses do not “prove”
anything. Consider changing “proved” to “suggested that”.
Page 13. Page numbering starts over at 2. Please correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Title: Consider changing the title to capitalize on the uniqueness of the data. Something like,
“Abdominal surgical site infections: Incidence and risk factors at an Iranian teaching hospital.” At the
very least, “Factors involved” needs to be changed to suggest risk factors, and “descriptive
correlational study” needs to be dropped as it does not describe the analysis.
Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1. Consider rearranging the first sentence to read “Abdominal surgical site
infections are among the most common infections aggravating inpatient admissions and have
serious consequences for outcomes, hospital stay, and costs.” In addition, change “e.g.” to “including”.
Page 9, Paragraphs 1 and 2. It is conventional not to start a sentence with a number. Consider
rewriting these sentences or writing out the numbers.
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_42_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 5,
"example": 23,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 18,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 47,
"results_and_discussion": 8,
"suggestion_and_solution": 40,
"total": 72
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.06944444444444445,
"example": 0.3194444444444444,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.013888888888888888,
"materials_and_methods": 0.25,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6527777777777778,
"results_and_discussion": 0.1111111111111111,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5555555555555556
}
| 1.972222
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Abdominal Surgical Site Infections and the Factors Involved: a descriptive correlational study Title: \n 1 1 June 2004 Version: Date: \n Christopher Hollenbeak Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nRazavi et al. seek to describe the rates of abdominal surgical site infections at a teaching hospital in \nIran, and identify factors associated with these infections. \nThe major strength of the paper is the fact that the authors provide data from Iran, a geographic area \nthat is underrepresented in the surgical site infection literature. \nThe primary limitations include an incomplete analysis of the data and awkward language that \ndistracts from the importance of the data. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nPage 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1. Consider changing “aims at determining the factors…” to “aims to \ndetermine risk factors…” \nAlso, the phrase “Iran’s leading teaching hospital” sounds like a marketing phrase. Please say “a \nmajor teaching hospital in Iran” or something similar. This should also be changed on Page 7 (Line \n4) \nPage 8, Paragraph 1, Line 12. Note that all variables are quantitative. You should state that \ncontinuous variables were compared using Student’s t test and categorical variables were compared \nusing a chi-square test. Given the relatively large sample size there is no need to use Fisher’s exact test. \nTable 5. Did all patients get antibiotic prophylaxis? If not, add another column for “None”. This table \nshould have a single p-value since if patients did not get cefazolin, for example, they got something else. Thus the comparison should be across all treatments and not pairwise comparisons. \nFor the analysis, consider a multivariate analysis using logistic regression that assesses risk of \ninfections controlling for all independent variables at the same time. \nPlease describe how outcomes, particularly mortality, were affected by the development of these \ninfections. \nThe conclusions should be revised to reflect what was learned from the current data set. What was \nthe overall rate of infection, and what were the risk factors? How did the infections impact \noutcomes? \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nPage 4, Paragraph 1, Line 2. Drop the phrase “descriptive-analytic”. Also, change the phrase “the \nrelations between dependent and independent variables were analyzed…” to “the relationships \nbetween variables were analyzed…” \nPage 4, Paragraph 2, Line 2. Please use parentheses instead of square brackets to report \npercentages. Reserve square brackets for in-text citations. This will need to be changed throughout. \nIn line 10, change “correlated” to “associated” and state that the p-values were less than or equal to \n0.001. \nPage 4, Paragraph 3. Revise the conclusion paragraph to make it more informative. \nPage 5, Paragraph 1, Line 2. All in-text citations need to go before punctuation. So, for example, the \nfirst sentence should read “…14-16 percent of inpatient infections [1].” This is inconsistent and \nneeds to be checked throughout. \nPage 6. Please change this bulleted list to a single, readable paragraph. Provide a reference for the \nKruise citation. With respect to steroids, please state that the use of steroids increases the infection \nrate by 9 percentage points. A change from 7% to 16% is a change of 129%, and 9 percentage \npoints. \nPage 7, Line 4. Please change “Iran leading teaching hospital”. Also, I believe Khomeini is \nmisspelled. In Line 5 please omit “correlational” and “leading”. \nPage 7, Line 8. There is no need to describe the initial power calculation. Simply state that 884 \npatients were recruited for the study and 82 were excluded, along with exclusion criteria. \nPage 7, Line 16. Dependant should be spelled Dependent. In Line 18, drop “[effective factors]” Drop \nthe last line on Page 7 as the data collection tool is not a survey that needs validation. \nPlease move all tables to the end of the paper, with each table occupying its own page. \nTable 1. Change “Percentage” to “Percent”. \nPage numbering stops at page 10. Please continue for all pages. \nPage 12, Paragraph 1, Last line. It is not clear to which argument you are referring. \nPage 12, Paragraph 2, :Last line. Consider changing “ponder upon” to “consider” or drop this \nsentence altogether. \nPage 12, Paragraph 3, Line 4. It is generally understood that statistical analyses do not “prove” \nanything. Consider changing “proved” to “suggested that”. \nPage 13. Page numbering starts over at 2. Please correct. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nTitle: Consider changing the title to capitalize on the uniqueness of the data. Something like, \n“Abdominal surgical site infections: Incidence and risk factors at an Iranian teaching hospital.” At the \nvery least, “Factors involved” needs to be changed to suggest risk factors, and “descriptive \ncorrelational study” needs to be dropped as it does not describe the analysis. \nPage 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1. Consider rearranging the first sentence to read “Abdominal surgical site \ninfections are among the most common infections aggravating inpatient admissions and have \nserious consequences for outcomes, hospital stay, and costs.” In addition, change “e.g.” to “including”. \nPage 9, Paragraphs 1 and 2. It is conventional not to start a sentence with a number. Consider \nrewriting these sentences or writing out the numbers. \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections and the Factors Involved: a descriptive correlational study Title:
1 28 June 2004 Version: Date:
Susan van den Hof Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
The authors use the term prevalence when they mean incidence.
Instead of referring to a textbook (Mayhall), the original articles should be reffered to.
It is not clear which wound contamination class definitions are used. Are they the NNIS definitions?
Then it should be clean, clean-contaminated, contaminated and dirty-infected. If they are not used, a
definition of the categories used in this manuscript (clean, infected clean, infected, septic) should be
given.
In relation to the previous point: To my knowledge, by definition, abdominal surgery wounds cannot
be clean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The prevalence of risk factors for SSI should be included in table 1 in a separate column, instead of
being written out in the introduction.
Table 2-5 should be made into one table. This is very well possible if the rows and columns are
switched. Then, all variables investigated should be shown in this table (e.g. co-morbidity, type of
shaving).
If possible, it would be better to also show combinations of prophylactic antibiotics. If the
combinations are not too diverse, all patients will be shown only once.
Important risk factors should be considered simultaneously in a multiple analysis. If this is not
possible, the risk of confounding should be mentioned in the discussion.
In the first paragraph of the discussion, results are given while they are not mentioned in the results
section. They should be moved there and only be referred to in the discussion section.
The literature shows that given antibotics half an hour before surgery decreases the risk of SSI. This
manuscript shows that given antibiotics helpts, but the timing of prophylactic antibiotics is not given.
It would be good to include this in the results section, if possible. And if possible, see if the timing of
giving antibiotics shows differences in the risk of SSI.
One conclusion is that the pre-operative bed stay should be reduced. However, is this possible?
first mention of SSI (in introduction): write out the word
commonest=most common
Ethics was fully observed: this is not clear. Was the study approved by Table 1: incidence instead of prevalence In table 3 the percentages are not given correctly (0.6 and 19 should be 19.6%)
p-value of 0.00 does not exist, but may be <0.001
Results on co-morbidity (and type of shaving) are not given in Table 2-4, as stated in the text. Saving time: timing of shaving is what the authors mean. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Although the differences in SSI by BMI are not significant, a trend is visible (more SSI with low and
high BMI)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
none
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections and the Factors Involved: a descriptive correlational study Title:
1 28 June 2004 Version: Date:
Susan van den Hof Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
The authors use the term prevalence when they mean incidence.
Instead of referring to a textbook (Mayhall), the original articles should be reffered to.
It is not clear which wound contamination class definitions are used. Are they the NNIS definitions?
Then it should be clean, clean-contaminated, contaminated and dirty-infected. If they are not used, a
definition of the categories used in this manuscript (clean, infected clean, infected, septic) should be
given.
In relation to the previous point: To my knowledge, by definition, abdominal surgery wounds cannot
be clean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
The prevalence of risk factors for SSI should be included in table 1 in a separate column, instead of
being written out in the introduction.
Table 2-5 should be made into one table. This is very well possible if the rows and columns are
switched. Then, all variables investigated should be shown in this table (e.g. co-morbidity, type of
shaving).
If possible, it would be better to also show combinations of prophylactic antibiotics. If the
combinations are not too diverse, all patients will be shown only once.
Important risk factors should be considered simultaneously in a multiple analysis. If this is not
possible, the risk of confounding should be mentioned in the discussion.
In the first paragraph of the discussion, results are given while they are not mentioned in the results
section. They should be moved there and only be referred to in the discussion section.
The literature shows that given antibotics half an hour before surgery decreases the risk of SSI. This
manuscript shows that given antibiotics helpts, but the timing of prophylactic antibiotics is not given.
It would be good to include this in the results section, if possible. And if possible, see if the timing of
giving antibiotics shows differences in the risk of SSI.
One conclusion is that the pre-operative bed stay should be reduced. However, is this possible?
first mention of SSI (in introduction): write out the word
commonest=most common
Ethics was fully observed: this is not clear. Was the study approved by Table 1: incidence instead of prevalence In table 3 the percentages are not given correctly (0.6 and 19 should be 19.6%)
p-value of 0.00 does not exist, but may be <0.001
Results on co-morbidity (and type of shaving) are not given in Table 2-4, as stated in the text. Saving time: timing of shaving is what the authors mean. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Although the differences in SSI by BMI are not significant, a trend is visible (more SSI with low and
high BMI)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
none
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_42_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 7,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 16,
"results_and_discussion": 6,
"suggestion_and_solution": 15,
"total": 29
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.10344827586206896,
"example": 0.06896551724137931,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2413793103448276,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5517241379310345,
"results_and_discussion": 0.20689655172413793,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5172413793103449
}
| 1.689655
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Abdominal Surgical Site Infections and the Factors Involved: a descriptive correlational study Title: \n 1 28 June 2004 Version: Date: \n Susan van den Hof Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nThe authors use the term prevalence when they mean incidence. \nInstead of referring to a textbook (Mayhall), the original articles should be reffered to. \nIt is not clear which wound contamination class definitions are used. Are they the NNIS definitions? \nThen it should be clean, clean-contaminated, contaminated and dirty-infected. If they are not used, a \ndefinition of the categories used in this manuscript (clean, infected clean, infected, septic) should be \ngiven. \nIn relation to the previous point: To my knowledge, by definition, abdominal surgery wounds cannot \nbe clean. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nThe prevalence of risk factors for SSI should be included in table 1 in a separate column, instead of \nbeing written out in the introduction. \nTable 2-5 should be made into one table. This is very well possible if the rows and columns are \nswitched. Then, all variables investigated should be shown in this table (e.g. co-morbidity, type of \nshaving). \nIf possible, it would be better to also show combinations of prophylactic antibiotics. If the \ncombinations are not too diverse, all patients will be shown only once. \nImportant risk factors should be considered simultaneously in a multiple analysis. If this is not \npossible, the risk of confounding should be mentioned in the discussion. \nIn the first paragraph of the discussion, results are given while they are not mentioned in the results \nsection. They should be moved there and only be referred to in the discussion section. \nThe literature shows that given antibotics half an hour before surgery decreases the risk of SSI. This \nmanuscript shows that given antibiotics helpts, but the timing of prophylactic antibiotics is not given. \nIt would be good to include this in the results section, if possible. And if possible, see if the timing of \ngiving antibiotics shows differences in the risk of SSI. \nOne conclusion is that the pre-operative bed stay should be reduced. However, is this possible? \nfirst mention of SSI (in introduction): write out the word \ncommonest=most common \nEthics was fully observed: this is not clear. Was the study approved by Table 1: incidence instead of prevalence In table 3 the percentages are not given correctly (0.6 and 19 should be 19.6%) \np-value of 0.00 does not exist, but may be <0.001 \nResults on co-morbidity (and type of shaving) are not given in Table 2-4, as stated in the text. Saving time: timing of shaving is what the authors mean. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nAlthough the differences in SSI by BMI are not significant, a trend is visible (more SSI with low and \nhigh BMI) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nnone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors at an Iranian teaching hospital Title:
3 27 August 2004 Version: Date:
Susan van den Hof Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
P6. The reference to the study of Kruise should be included.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
The authors claim to have followed up on all comments, but this does not seem to be the case.
* The prevalence of risk factors for SSI are not included in Table 1, but take up a large part of the
text in the introduction * Show combinations of prophylactic antibiotics
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors at an Iranian teaching hospital Title:
3 27 August 2004 Version: Date:
Susan van den Hof Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
P6. The reference to the study of Kruise should be included.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
The authors claim to have followed up on all comments, but this does not seem to be the case.
* The prevalence of risk factors for SSI are not included in Table 1, but take up a large part of the
text in the introduction * Show combinations of prophylactic antibiotics
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of limited interest Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_42_ReviewerReport_V3_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2,
"example": 0.4,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.2,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4
}
| 1.8
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Abdominal Surgical Site Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors at an Iranian teaching hospital Title: \n 3 27 August 2004 Version: Date: \n Susan van den Hof Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \nP6. The reference to the study of Kruise should be included. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \nThe authors claim to have followed up on all comments, but this does not seem to be the case. \n* The prevalence of risk factors for SSI are not included in Table 1, but take up a large part of the \ntext in the introduction * Show combinations of prophylactic antibiotics \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of limited interest Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-5-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors at an Iranian teaching hospital Title:
3 31 August 2004 Version: Date:
Christopher Hollenbeak Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Tables 1 and 2 appear to be repeated at the end of the paper. Please remove.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
Reviewer's report
Abdominal Surgical Site Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors at an Iranian teaching hospital Title:
3 31 August 2004 Version: Date:
Christopher Hollenbeak Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
Tables 1 and 2 appear to be repeated at the end of the paper. Please remove.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest:
interests
Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_42_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 5
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.4,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.2,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6,
"results_and_discussion": 0.2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.4
}
| 2
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Abdominal Surgical Site Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors at an Iranian teaching hospital Title: \n 3 31 August 2004 Version: Date: \n Christopher Hollenbeak Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) \nNone. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \nTables 1 and 2 appear to be repeated at the end of the paper. Please remove. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: \ninterests \n Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,005
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-4-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title:
4 15 April 2004 Version: Date:
Karel CMM Everaertr Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an honest presentation of a cohort treated by pudendal nerve decompression and brings
sufficient new material that merits publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) Type of article: this is not a research article but a clinical presentation of results. 2) Structure of the article: It feels like many sub articles are joined in 1 topic. There are 3 aims of
whom the first and the last fit. The second aim is not sufficiently studied (and weak proof) so I
suggest giving the results but not considering it as an aim of the study. Anyhow it is a bit strange not
including Dr Bex as a co-author if this is an important aim of the study.
3) The article is difficult to read due to the many subsections, subpopulations and co-surgeries performed. Therefore a logistic regression analysis is suggested. It might summarize results;
increase the power of the study and the readability. The best example is anal incontinence: if a
sphincteroplasty + pudendal nerve decompression is performed, how can we judge on the effect of the decompression? Again omitting some patients and/or logistic regression might improve the article quality.
4) The article is difficult to read, as the author wants to supply all information he has and we suggest
omitting certain parts (see later).
5) Discussion: The author repeats several times: “the weakness of the study”. One might write this once but if repeated continuously it is the same as writing that the study is not worth publishing. I
suggest criticising once for the several sub conclusions in for example the second paragraph. In the
first paragraph I would discuss the major conclusion. 6) Discussion: “Prevalence”: new data come in here which should be in the result section. 7) Abstract: one should also mention the sensitivity of a test and not only the specificity.
8) Main questions for me remains, which are the strict minimum diagnostic criteria to decide for
surgery (ie neurophysiology + 1 sign, etc…).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
- Introduction, aim 3: these 3 signs: which 3? - Materials and methods: I miss the words: this is a retrospective analysis… - Materials and methods: I miss the diagnostic criteria used to decide for surgery, it is always and/or
so I could decide that 1 observation is enough?
- Materials and methods: neurophysiology before and after surgery. It seems extremely important to supply data on how long after surgery this evaluation was done (mean months-range) and in how many patients or one should refer to the table.
- Materials and methods: the surgical technique should be referred as done but not explained into
details, as the article is too complex.
- Results: omit “there was a clear psychological problem before the surgery” as this not proven and
therefore a statement that complexes the article without any use
- Results: I do need a summarizing table on the clinical results gathering all aspects using cure/improvement/failure/worsening. With this table available, these results do not need to be repeated in the text, which will increase the readability significantly.
- Results: the 3 signs: the data are not in agreement with the figure. It is not difficult to make the
circles more realistic or even use clouds, which would be more correct. Otherwise one can omit the figure. - Discussion: paragraph 1: “is a relatively frequent event” This is not scientifically language, how
frequent in the literature?
- Discussion page 10: “group was statistically younger”; significant is missing - Discussion; effect on symptoms: Omit the first paragraph, makes no sense here, is even a result and should then be presented there and not around 20 min but 20 min (range, SD…). Several parts
can be omitted in this section.
- Discussion, p12: pudendal nerve decompression – urge incontinence: there is no reference in this paragraph and it does not really discuss? - Discussion, EMLG-PNTML, p13: very honest but give the impressions that the observations are
worthless, I suggest not discuss this weakness as neurophyusiology is only given as a
complementary test?
- Tables: Abbreviations must be explained in a legend
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
none
|
Reviewer's report
Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title:
4 15 April 2004 Version: Date:
Karel CMM Everaertr Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
This is an honest presentation of a cohort treated by pudendal nerve decompression and brings
sufficient new material that merits publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) Type of article: this is not a research article but a clinical presentation of results. 2) Structure of the article: It feels like many sub articles are joined in 1 topic. There are 3 aims of
whom the first and the last fit. The second aim is not sufficiently studied (and weak proof) so I
suggest giving the results but not considering it as an aim of the study. Anyhow it is a bit strange not
including Dr Bex as a co-author if this is an important aim of the study.
3) The article is difficult to read due to the many subsections, subpopulations and co-surgeries performed. Therefore a logistic regression analysis is suggested. It might summarize results;
increase the power of the study and the readability. The best example is anal incontinence: if a
sphincteroplasty + pudendal nerve decompression is performed, how can we judge on the effect of the decompression? Again omitting some patients and/or logistic regression might improve the article quality.
4) The article is difficult to read, as the author wants to supply all information he has and we suggest
omitting certain parts (see later).
5) Discussion: The author repeats several times: “the weakness of the study”. One might write this once but if repeated continuously it is the same as writing that the study is not worth publishing. I
suggest criticising once for the several sub conclusions in for example the second paragraph. In the
first paragraph I would discuss the major conclusion. 6) Discussion: “Prevalence”: new data come in here which should be in the result section. 7) Abstract: one should also mention the sensitivity of a test and not only the specificity.
8) Main questions for me remains, which are the strict minimum diagnostic criteria to decide for
surgery (ie neurophysiology + 1 sign, etc…).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the
author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
- Introduction, aim 3: these 3 signs: which 3? - Materials and methods: I miss the words: this is a retrospective analysis… - Materials and methods: I miss the diagnostic criteria used to decide for surgery, it is always and/or
so I could decide that 1 observation is enough?
- Materials and methods: neurophysiology before and after surgery. It seems extremely important to supply data on how long after surgery this evaluation was done (mean months-range) and in how many patients or one should refer to the table.
- Materials and methods: the surgical technique should be referred as done but not explained into
details, as the article is too complex.
- Results: omit “there was a clear psychological problem before the surgery” as this not proven and
therefore a statement that complexes the article without any use
- Results: I do need a summarizing table on the clinical results gathering all aspects using cure/improvement/failure/worsening. With this table available, these results do not need to be repeated in the text, which will increase the readability significantly.
- Results: the 3 signs: the data are not in agreement with the figure. It is not difficult to make the
circles more realistic or even use clouds, which would be more correct. Otherwise one can omit the figure. - Discussion: paragraph 1: “is a relatively frequent event” This is not scientifically language, how
frequent in the literature?
- Discussion page 10: “group was statistically younger”; significant is missing - Discussion; effect on symptoms: Omit the first paragraph, makes no sense here, is even a result and should then be presented there and not around 20 min but 20 min (range, SD…). Several parts
can be omitted in this section.
- Discussion, p12: pudendal nerve decompression – urge incontinence: there is no reference in this paragraph and it does not really discuss? - Discussion, EMLG-PNTML, p13: very honest but give the impressions that the observations are
worthless, I suggest not discuss this weakness as neurophyusiology is only given as a
complementary test?
- Tables: Abbreviations must be explained in a legend
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
none
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_40_ReviewerReport_V4_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 10,
"example": 7,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 13,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 22,
"results_and_discussion": 15,
"suggestion_and_solution": 20,
"total": 36
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.2777777777777778,
"example": 0.19444444444444445,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.05555555555555555,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3611111111111111,
"praise": 0.027777777777777776,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.6111111111111112,
"results_and_discussion": 0.4166666666666667,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5555555555555556
}
| 2.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title: \n 4 15 April 2004 Version: Date: \n Karel CMM Everaertr Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nThis is an honest presentation of a cohort treated by pudendal nerve decompression and brings \nsufficient new material that merits publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n1) Type of article: this is not a research article but a clinical presentation of results. 2) Structure of the article: It feels like many sub articles are joined in 1 topic. There are 3 aims of \nwhom the first and the last fit. The second aim is not sufficiently studied (and weak proof) so I \nsuggest giving the results but not considering it as an aim of the study. Anyhow it is a bit strange not \nincluding Dr Bex as a co-author if this is an important aim of the study. \n3) The article is difficult to read due to the many subsections, subpopulations and co-surgeries performed. Therefore a logistic regression analysis is suggested. It might summarize results; \nincrease the power of the study and the readability. The best example is anal incontinence: if a \nsphincteroplasty + pudendal nerve decompression is performed, how can we judge on the effect of the decompression? Again omitting some patients and/or logistic regression might improve the article quality. \n4) The article is difficult to read, as the author wants to supply all information he has and we suggest \nomitting certain parts (see later). \n5) Discussion: The author repeats several times: “the weakness of the study”. One might write this once but if repeated continuously it is the same as writing that the study is not worth publishing. I \nsuggest criticising once for the several sub conclusions in for example the second paragraph. In the \nfirst paragraph I would discuss the major conclusion. 6) Discussion: “Prevalence”: new data come in here which should be in the result section. 7) Abstract: one should also mention the sensitivity of a test and not only the specificity. \n8) Main questions for me remains, which are the strict minimum diagnostic criteria to decide for \nsurgery (ie neurophysiology + 1 sign, etc…). \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the \nauthor can be trusted to correct) \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n- Introduction, aim 3: these 3 signs: which 3? - Materials and methods: I miss the words: this is a retrospective analysis… - Materials and methods: I miss the diagnostic criteria used to decide for surgery, it is always and/or \nso I could decide that 1 observation is enough? \n- Materials and methods: neurophysiology before and after surgery. It seems extremely important to supply data on how long after surgery this evaluation was done (mean months-range) and in how many patients or one should refer to the table. \n- Materials and methods: the surgical technique should be referred as done but not explained into \ndetails, as the article is too complex. \n- Results: omit “there was a clear psychological problem before the surgery” as this not proven and \ntherefore a statement that complexes the article without any use \n- Results: I do need a summarizing table on the clinical results gathering all aspects using cure/improvement/failure/worsening. With this table available, these results do not need to be repeated in the text, which will increase the readability significantly. \n- Results: the 3 signs: the data are not in agreement with the figure. It is not difficult to make the \ncircles more realistic or even use clouds, which would be more correct. Otherwise one can omit the figure. - Discussion: paragraph 1: “is a relatively frequent event” This is not scientifically language, how \nfrequent in the literature? \n- Discussion page 10: “group was statistically younger”; significant is missing - Discussion; effect on symptoms: Omit the first paragraph, makes no sense here, is even a result and should then be presented there and not around 20 min but 20 min (range, SD…). Several parts \ncan be omitted in this section. \n- Discussion, p12: pudendal nerve decompression – urge incontinence: there is no reference in this paragraph and it does not really discuss? - Discussion, EMLG-PNTML, p13: very honest but give the impressions that the observations are \nworthless, I suggest not discuss this weakness as neurophyusiology is only given as a \ncomplementary test? \n- Tables: Abbreviations must be explained in a legend \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nnone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,004
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-4-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title:
4 19 April 2004 Version: Date:
Ali Shafik Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
- Table 1: • The 'MVT' needs to be - defined according to Mouchel
- referenced
• Reference to 'Levatorplasty, according to Shafik" should be added
- On page 4 in the 5th paragraph, the details and results of 'history and clinical examination of the
3 perineal axis' should be mentioned.
- A reference for the 'sign' relating to the 'hold and roll test' mentioned in the 1st paragraph of page
5 should be included.
- Reference 31 needs to be completed.
REPORT (replying to questions of pages 2 – 5)
A - Questions 1 – 7 are all answerable with 'yes'.
B - Minor essential revision is requested which the author can be trusted to correct.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
|
Reviewer's report
Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title:
4 19 April 2004 Version: Date:
Ali Shafik Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
- Table 1: • The 'MVT' needs to be - defined according to Mouchel
- referenced
• Reference to 'Levatorplasty, according to Shafik" should be added
- On page 4 in the 5th paragraph, the details and results of 'history and clinical examination of the
3 perineal axis' should be mentioned.
- A reference for the 'sign' relating to the 'hold and roll test' mentioned in the 1st paragraph of page
5 should be included.
- Reference 31 needs to be completed.
REPORT (replying to questions of pages 2 – 5)
A - Questions 1 – 7 are all answerable with 'yes'.
B - Minor essential revision is requested which the author can be trusted to correct.
Accept after minor essential revisions What next?:
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_40_ReviewerReport_V4_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 3,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 6,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 4,
"total": 7
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0.42857142857142855,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.14285714285714285,
"materials_and_methods": 0.14285714285714285,
"praise": 0.14285714285714285,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.8571428571428571,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5714285714285714
}
| 2.285714
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title: \n 4 19 April 2004 Version: Date: \n Ali Shafik Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \n- Table 1: • The 'MVT' needs to be - defined according to Mouchel \n- referenced \n• Reference to 'Levatorplasty, according to Shafik\" should be added \n- On page 4 in the 5th paragraph, the details and results of 'history and clinical examination of the \n3 perineal axis' should be mentioned. \n- A reference for the 'sign' relating to the 'hold and roll test' mentioned in the 1st paragraph of page \n5 should be included. \n- Reference 31 needs to be completed. \nREPORT (replying to questions of pages 2 – 5) \nA - Questions 1 – 7 are all answerable with 'yes'. \nB - Minor essential revision is requested which the author can be trusted to correct. \n Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nNone. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,004
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-4-15
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title:
6 30 August 2004 Version: Date:
Karel CMM Everaertr Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Again, this cohort is worth publishing but some issues were not addressed and need to be included
prior to accepting this work for publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) Table 7: it should be clear that this table does not validate anything so the title should be changed.
I would also add 1 column indicating the number of patients that comply to that category. It is for
example necessary that the reader can see how many patients had the 3 signs positive because
what is a high specificity worth if only 5% of the patients have them all 3 together positive. Even if
this column is added there is however no validation!! One might try to validate the 3 signs without
RCT by making a table as below:
n Se Sp + pred value - pred value % cured + improved
Sign1 Sign2 Sign3
Sign1+2
Sign1+3 Sign2+3 Sign1+2+3
This way we would see which are the minimal criteria for diagnosis related to outcome and for how
many ptns this is relevant. The predictive values are more relevant then the likelihood as they also take in account the prevalence of the disease which were estimated by the authors as 20% in their population.
2) I want to too see 1 paragraph in the “methods” in which the authors describe which are their
personal minimal criteria for making the diagnosis of the disease in these patients because after
reading this article I am not able to make the diagnosis in my next patient, so I cannot reproduce the
data. It must be possible to understand why the author did conclude for all his patients why he did
the surgery and if this is not possible or if this is done by “gut feeling” this should be explicitly
specified.
3) The conclusion, both in abstract and full text need to be weakened. The authors did not proof that
the therapy works, neither that the 3 symptoms are validated as it is not an RCT. So, the results can
suggest that but nothing more, and this cohorts is stimulating for further study. The authors must
realize it theme selves as nowhere in result and discussion they answer the question which are the minimal criteria needed for the diagnosis, ie how many signs need to be +, etc,...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1) I want to see the word " retrospective analysis" in both the methods section of the abstract and the
full text.
2) Result section-validation: I do not understand why generally accepted statistical tests are
explained in the result section. One can do this in the "methods" section if this is relevant. In the last
paragraph there is discussion happening which is not acceptable in a result section.
3) Table 2 and 4 miss legends on statistical tests and asterix with p-values if differences were significant (I assumed the result were no statistical significant result?).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
none
|
Reviewer's report
Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title:
6 30 August 2004 Version: Date:
Karel CMM Everaertr Reviewer:
Reviewer's report:
General
Again, this cohort is worth publishing but some issues were not addressed and need to be included
prior to accepting this work for publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can
be reached)
1) Table 7: it should be clear that this table does not validate anything so the title should be changed.
I would also add 1 column indicating the number of patients that comply to that category. It is for
example necessary that the reader can see how many patients had the 3 signs positive because
what is a high specificity worth if only 5% of the patients have them all 3 together positive. Even if
this column is added there is however no validation!! One might try to validate the 3 signs without
RCT by making a table as below:
n Se Sp + pred value - pred value % cured + improved
Sign1 Sign2 Sign3
Sign1+2
Sign1+3 Sign2+3 Sign1+2+3
This way we would see which are the minimal criteria for diagnosis related to outcome and for how
many ptns this is relevant. The predictive values are more relevant then the likelihood as they also take in account the prevalence of the disease which were estimated by the authors as 20% in their population.
2) I want to too see 1 paragraph in the “methods” in which the authors describe which are their
personal minimal criteria for making the diagnosis of the disease in these patients because after
reading this article I am not able to make the diagnosis in my next patient, so I cannot reproduce the
data. It must be possible to understand why the author did conclude for all his patients why he did
the surgery and if this is not possible or if this is done by “gut feeling” this should be explicitly
specified.
3) The conclusion, both in abstract and full text need to be weakened. The authors did not proof that
the therapy works, neither that the 3 symptoms are validated as it is not an RCT. So, the results can
suggest that but nothing more, and this cohorts is stimulating for further study. The authors must
realize it theme selves as nowhere in result and discussion they answer the question which are the minimal criteria needed for the diagnosis, ie how many signs need to be +, etc,...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
1) I want to see the word " retrospective analysis" in both the methods section of the abstract and the
full text.
2) Result section-validation: I do not understand why generally accepted statistical tests are
explained in the result section. One can do this in the "methods" section if this is relevant. In the last
paragraph there is discussion happening which is not acceptable in a result section.
3) Table 2 and 4 miss legends on statistical tests and asterix with p-values if differences were significant (I assumed the result were no statistical significant result?).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?:
major compulsory revisions
An article of importance in its field Level of interest:
Acceptable Quality of written English:
No Statistical review:
Declaration of competing interests:
none
|
BMC
|
12893_2004_40_ReviewerReport_V6_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 7,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 12,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 14,
"results_and_discussion": 9,
"suggestion_and_solution": 11,
"total": 19
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.3684210526315789,
"example": 0.21052631578947367,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.05263157894736842,
"materials_and_methods": 0.631578947368421,
"praise": 0.10526315789473684,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.7368421052631579,
"results_and_discussion": 0.47368421052631576,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.5789473684210527
}
| 3.157895
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report \n Pudendal nerve decompression: a basic procedure in perineology Title: \n 6 30 August 2004 Version: Date: \n Karel CMM Everaertr Reviewer: \nReviewer's report: \nGeneral \nAgain, this cohort is worth publishing but some issues were not addressed and need to be included \nprior to accepting this work for publication. \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMajor Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can \nbe reached) \n1) Table 7: it should be clear that this table does not validate anything so the title should be changed. \nI would also add 1 column indicating the number of patients that comply to that category. It is for \nexample necessary that the reader can see how many patients had the 3 signs positive because \nwhat is a high specificity worth if only 5% of the patients have them all 3 together positive. Even if \nthis column is added there is however no validation!! One might try to validate the 3 signs without \nRCT by making a table as below: \nn Se Sp + pred value - pred value % cured + improved \nSign1 Sign2 Sign3 \nSign1+2 \nSign1+3 Sign2+3 Sign1+2+3 \nThis way we would see which are the minimal criteria for diagnosis related to outcome and for how \nmany ptns this is relevant. The predictive values are more relevant then the likelihood as they also take in account the prevalence of the disease which were estimated by the authors as 20% in their population. \n2) I want to too see 1 paragraph in the “methods” in which the authors describe which are their \npersonal minimal criteria for making the diagnosis of the disease in these patients because after \nreading this article I am not able to make the diagnosis in my next patient, so I cannot reproduce the \ndata. It must be possible to understand why the author did conclude for all his patients why he did \nthe surgery and if this is not possible or if this is done by “gut feeling” this should be explicitly \nspecified. \n3) The conclusion, both in abstract and full text need to be weakened. The authors did not proof that \nthe therapy works, neither that the 3 symptoms are validated as it is not an RCT. So, the results can \nsuggest that but nothing more, and this cohorts is stimulating for further study. The authors must \nrealize it theme selves as nowhere in result and discussion they answer the question which are the minimal criteria needed for the diagnosis, ie how many signs need to be +, etc,... \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nMinor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) \n1) I want to see the word \" retrospective analysis\" in both the methods section of the abstract and the \nfull text. \n2) Result section-validation: I do not understand why generally accepted statistical tests are \nexplained in the result section. One can do this in the \"methods\" section if this is relevant. In the last \nparagraph there is discussion happening which is not acceptable in a result section. \n3) Table 2 and 4 miss legends on statistical tests and asterix with p-values if differences were significant (I assumed the result were no statistical significant result?). \n------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nDiscretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) \n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: \nmajor compulsory revisions \n An article of importance in its field Level of interest: \n Acceptable Quality of written English: \n No Statistical review: \nDeclaration of competing interests: \nnone ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,004
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.