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 10.1186/1471-2482-2-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□Clinical□and□Immunohistochemical□Study□of□Eight□Cases□with□Thymic□Carcinoma Title:
Authors:
Masaki□Tomita□( [email protected] )
Yasunori□Matsuzaki□( [email protected] )
Masao□Edagawa□( [email protected] )
Masayuki□Maeda□( [email protected] )
Tetsuya□Shimizu□( [email protected] )
Masaki□Hara□( [email protected] )
Toshio□Onitsuka□( [email protected] )
□2□ □13□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
□Prof□Hans□Mueller□Hermelink Reviewer:
□not□specified Level□of□interest:
□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication:
The□manuscript□by□Tomita□et□al.□reports□on□clinical□and□histological□findings□in□some□of□the□very□rare□
patients□with□thymic□carcinoma.□The□paper□has□the□considerable□problem□(also□envisaged□by□the□
authors)□that□the□number□of□patients□is□simply□too□low□to□draw□safe□conclusions□as□far□as□survival□or□
therapy□options□are□concerned.□A□further□problem□is□that□even□the□small□number□of□cases□is□suffering□
from□histological□heterogeneity.□This□latter□problem□is□further□aggravated□by□the□lack□of□grading□of□the□
squamous□cell□carcinomas.□
On□the□other□hand□there□are□some□interesting□observations□like□potential□role□of□complete□versus□
incomplete□resection□of□the□immunohistochemical□findings.□ In□conclusion,□I□believe□that□the□manuscript□in□its□present□form□can□not□be□published.□
Discretionary□Revisions□
none□
Compulsary□Revisions□
1.□Abstract:□All□the□negative□results□given□in□the□abstract□(concerning□e.g.□the□value□of□radiotherapy)□ should□be□discarded.□The□respective□statements□give□the□erroneous□impression□to□an□inexperienced□
reader□or□patient□that□the□manuscript□could□make□a□significant□statement□e.g.□on□the□value□of□
radiotherapy.□However,□such□statements□are□simply□not□possible□on□the□basis□of□the□underlying□data.□ The□only□safe□conclusion□that□I□see□is□the□recommendation□that□future□and□more□extensive□studies□may□ consider□the□resection□status□or□the□immunohistochemical□findings□as□interesting□variables□for□
correlative□studies.□
2.□Background.□The□authors□give□a□frequency□of□0.06%□for□thymic□carcinomas□among□thymic□tumors.□ This□is□referenced□with□only□one□publication.□Indeed,□most□other□give□substantially□higher□frequencies□ that□appear□more□reasonable□to□this□reviewer.□
3.□The□rational□to□study□the□antigens□investigated□should□be□given□in□more□detail□(i.e.□the□analogy□to□
other□tumors□with□a□better□established□pathogenesis□should□be□stressed□-□also□in□the□Discussion).□
4.□Materials:□Histological□grading□for□the□5□squamous□cell□carcinomas□and□the□1□adenosquamous□
carcinoma□should□be□given.□
5.□Methods:□Microvessel□density□should□be□defined:□vessels□per□high-power-field?□Vessels□per□mm2□or□ other□?□ 6.□Results:□the□significances□in□this□reviewer's□opinion□give□a□wrong□impression□of□clinical□significance.□
Particularly□the□negative□results□are□not□at□all□meaningful□given□the□impossibility□to□perform□multivariate□
analysis.□E.g.□the□observation□that□histology□(squamous□versus□others)□appears□to□have□no□prognostic□ implication□is□simply□unwarranted□give□that□all□the□stage□IV□tumors□were□squamous□carcinomas.□The□ result□might□also□be□the□consequence□of□a□lack□of□grading.□The□same□is□true□for□the□therapy□effects□and□
the□correlations□established□between□immunohistochemical□findings□and□survival.□
6.□Discussion:□It□largely□lacks□the□attempt□to□EXPLAIN□observations□or□differences□compared□to□other□
studies.□It□also□draws□too□little□attention□to□other□tumors□with□a□similar□histology□occurring□in□other□
locations□(e.g.□the□lung).□Are□there□differences□or□parallels□as□compared□to□squamous□carcinomas□of□the□
lung?□
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□Clinical□and□Immunohistochemical□Study□of□Eight□Cases□with□Thymic□Carcinoma Title:
Authors:
Masaki□Tomita□( [email protected] )
Yasunori□Matsuzaki□( [email protected] )
Masao□Edagawa□( [email protected] )
Masayuki□Maeda□( [email protected] )
Tetsuya□Shimizu□( [email protected] )
Masaki□Hara□( [email protected] )
Toshio□Onitsuka□( [email protected] )
□2□ □13□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
□Prof□Hans□Mueller□Hermelink Reviewer:
□not□specified Level□of□interest:
□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication:
The□manuscript□by□Tomita□et□al.□reports□on□clinical□and□histological□findings□in□some□of□the□very□rare□
patients□with□thymic□carcinoma.□The□paper□has□the□considerable□problem□(also□envisaged□by□the□
authors)□that□the□number□of□patients□is□simply□too□low□to□draw□safe□conclusions□as□far□as□survival□or□
therapy□options□are□concerned.□A□further□problem□is□that□even□the□small□number□of□cases□is□suffering□
from□histological□heterogeneity.□This□latter□problem□is□further□aggravated□by□the□lack□of□grading□of□the□
squamous□cell□carcinomas.□
On□the□other□hand□there□are□some□interesting□observations□like□potential□role□of□complete□versus□
incomplete□resection□of□the□immunohistochemical□findings.□ In□conclusion,□I□believe□that□the□manuscript□in□its□present□form□can□not□be□published.□
Discretionary□Revisions□
none□
Compulsary□Revisions□
1.□Abstract:□All□the□negative□results□given□in□the□abstract□(concerning□e.g.□the□value□of□radiotherapy)□ should□be□discarded.□The□respective□statements□give□the□erroneous□impression□to□an□inexperienced□
reader□or□patient□that□the□manuscript□could□make□a□significant□statement□e.g.□on□the□value□of□
radiotherapy.□However,□such□statements□are□simply□not□possible□on□the□basis□of□the□underlying□data.□ The□only□safe□conclusion□that□I□see□is□the□recommendation□that□future□and□more□extensive□studies□may□ consider□the□resection□status□or□the□immunohistochemical□findings□as□interesting□variables□for□
correlative□studies.□
2.□Background.□The□authors□give□a□frequency□of□0.06%□for□thymic□carcinomas□among□thymic□tumors.□ This□is□referenced□with□only□one□publication.□Indeed,□most□other□give□substantially□higher□frequencies□ that□appear□more□reasonable□to□this□reviewer.□
3.□The□rational□to□study□the□antigens□investigated□should□be□given□in□more□detail□(i.e.□the□analogy□to□
other□tumors□with□a□better□established□pathogenesis□should□be□stressed□-□also□in□the□Discussion).□
4.□Materials:□Histological□grading□for□the□5□squamous□cell□carcinomas□and□the□1□adenosquamous□
carcinoma□should□be□given.□
5.□Methods:□Microvessel□density□should□be□defined:□vessels□per□high-power-field?□Vessels□per□mm2□or□ other□?□ 6.□Results:□the□significances□in□this□reviewer's□opinion□give□a□wrong□impression□of□clinical□significance.□
Particularly□the□negative□results□are□not□at□all□meaningful□given□the□impossibility□to□perform□multivariate□
analysis.□E.g.□the□observation□that□histology□(squamous□versus□others)□appears□to□have□no□prognostic□ implication□is□simply□unwarranted□give□that□all□the□stage□IV□tumors□were□squamous□carcinomas.□The□ result□might□also□be□the□consequence□of□a□lack□of□grading.□The□same□is□true□for□the□therapy□effects□and□
the□correlations□established□between□immunohistochemical□findings□and□survival.□
6.□Discussion:□It□largely□lacks□the□attempt□to□EXPLAIN□observations□or□differences□compared□to□other□
studies.□It□also□draws□too□little□attention□to□other□tumors□with□a□similar□histology□occurring□in□other□
locations□(e.g.□the□lung).□Are□there□differences□or□parallels□as□compared□to□squamous□carcinomas□of□the□
lung?□
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_7_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 1
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 0
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□Clinical□and□Immunohistochemical□Study□of□Eight□Cases□with□Thymic□Carcinoma Title: \nAuthors: \nMasaki□Tomita□( [email protected] )\nYasunori□Matsuzaki□( [email protected] )\nMasao□Edagawa□( [email protected] )\nMasayuki□Maeda□( [email protected] )\nTetsuya□Shimizu□( [email protected] )\nMasaki□Hara□( [email protected] )\nToshio□Onitsuka□( [email protected] )\n□2□ □13□Mar□2002 Version: Date: \n□Prof□Hans□Mueller□Hermelink Reviewer: \n□not□specified Level□of□interest: \n□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication: \nThe□manuscript□by□Tomita□et□al.□reports□on□clinical□and□histological□findings□in□some□of□the□very□rare□ \npatients□with□thymic□carcinoma.□The□paper□has□the□considerable□problem□(also□envisaged□by□the□ \nauthors)□that□the□number□of□patients□is□simply□too□low□to□draw□safe□conclusions□as□far□as□survival□or□ \ntherapy□options□are□concerned.□A□further□problem□is□that□even□the□small□number□of□cases□is□suffering□ \nfrom□histological□heterogeneity.□This□latter□problem□is□further□aggravated□by□the□lack□of□grading□of□the□ \nsquamous□cell□carcinomas.□ \nOn□the□other□hand□there□are□some□interesting□observations□like□potential□role□of□complete□versus□ \nincomplete□resection□of□the□immunohistochemical□findings.□ In□conclusion,□I□believe□that□the□manuscript□in□its□present□form□can□not□be□published.□ \nDiscretionary□Revisions□ \nnone□ \nCompulsary□Revisions□ \n1.□Abstract:□All□the□negative□results□given□in□the□abstract□(concerning□e.g.□the□value□of□radiotherapy)□ should□be□discarded.□The□respective□statements□give□the□erroneous□impression□to□an□inexperienced□ \nreader□or□patient□that□the□manuscript□could□make□a□significant□statement□e.g.□on□the□value□of□ \nradiotherapy.□However,□such□statements□are□simply□not□possible□on□the□basis□of□the□underlying□data.□ The□only□safe□conclusion□that□I□see□is□the□recommendation□that□future□and□more□extensive□studies□may□ consider□the□resection□status□or□the□immunohistochemical□findings□as□interesting□variables□for□ \ncorrelative□studies.□ \n2.□Background.□The□authors□give□a□frequency□of□0.06%□for□thymic□carcinomas□among□thymic□tumors.□ This□is□referenced□with□only□one□publication.□Indeed,□most□other□give□substantially□higher□frequencies□ that□appear□more□reasonable□to□this□reviewer.□ \n3.□The□rational□to□study□the□antigens□investigated□should□be□given□in□more□detail□(i.e.□the□analogy□to□ \nother□tumors□with□a□better□established□pathogenesis□should□be□stressed□-□also□in□the□Discussion).□ \n4.□Materials:□Histological□grading□for□the□5□squamous□cell□carcinomas□and□the□1□adenosquamous□ \ncarcinoma□should□be□given.□ \n5.□Methods:□Microvessel□density□should□be□defined:□vessels□per□high-power-field?□Vessels□per□mm2□or□ other□?□ 6.□Results:□the□significances□in□this□reviewer's□opinion□give□a□wrong□impression□of□clinical□significance.□ \nParticularly□the□negative□results□are□not□at□all□meaningful□given□the□impossibility□to□perform□multivariate□ \nanalysis.□E.g.□the□observation□that□histology□(squamous□versus□others)□appears□to□have□no□prognostic□ implication□is□simply□unwarranted□give□that□all□the□stage□IV□tumors□were□squamous□carcinomas.□The□ result□might□also□be□the□consequence□of□a□lack□of□grading.□The□same□is□true□for□the□therapy□effects□and□ \nthe□correlations□established□between□immunohistochemical□findings□and□survival.□ \n6.□Discussion:□It□largely□lacks□the□attempt□to□EXPLAIN□observations□or□differences□compared□to□other□ \nstudies.□It□also□draws□too□little□attention□to□other□tumors□with□a□similar□histology□occurring□in□other□ \nlocations□(e.g.□the□lung).□Are□there□differences□or□parallels□as□compared□to□squamous□carcinomas□of□the□ \nlung?□ \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-2-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
□Clinical□and□Immunohistochemical□Study□of□Eight□Cases□with□Thymic□Carcinoma Title:
Authors:
Masaki□Tomita□( [email protected] )
Yasunori□Matsuzaki□( [email protected] )
Masao□Edagawa□( [email protected] )
Masayuki□Maeda□( [email protected] )
Tetsuya□Shimizu□( [email protected] )
Masaki□Hara□( [email protected] )
Toshio□Onitsuka□( [email protected] )
□2□ □21□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
The□paper□is□written□much□better.□Specific□comments□are□as□follows:□
1.□Page□4□(first□paragraph):□How□many□patients□with□thymic□carcinoma□were□seen□at□the□University□during
the□same□time□period□that□were□not□treated□surgically?□
2.□Page□6□(last□paragraph):□"There□was□significant□difference..."□Was□there□indeed□a□p□value□designated□
for□this□or□is□this□supposed□to□be□obvious?□As□mentioned□previously,□with□the□small□number□of□patients□I□
think□it□would□be□difficult□to□have□statistical□significance.□
3.□Page□8□(second□and□third□lines):□"In□spite□of□these□limitations□our□data□show□that□a□complete□resection□
indicates□a□significantly□favorable□result."□There□is□no□data□supplied□in□this□paper□demonstrating□p□
values.□I□would□say,□"suggest□a□favorable□result".□
|
□Clinical□and□Immunohistochemical□Study□of□Eight□Cases□with□Thymic□Carcinoma Title:
Authors:
Masaki□Tomita□( [email protected] )
Yasunori□Matsuzaki□( [email protected] )
Masao□Edagawa□( [email protected] )
Masayuki□Maeda□( [email protected] )
Tetsuya□Shimizu□( [email protected] )
Masaki□Hara□( [email protected] )
Toshio□Onitsuka□( [email protected] )
□2□ □21□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
The□paper□is□written□much□better.□Specific□comments□are□as□follows:□
1.□Page□4□(first□paragraph):□How□many□patients□with□thymic□carcinoma□were□seen□at□the□University□during
the□same□time□period□that□were□not□treated□surgically?□
2.□Page□6□(last□paragraph):□"There□was□significant□difference..."□Was□there□indeed□a□p□value□designated□
for□this□or□is□this□supposed□to□be□obvious?□As□mentioned□previously,□with□the□small□number□of□patients□I□
think□it□would□be□difficult□to□have□statistical□significance.□
3.□Page□8□(second□and□third□lines):□"In□spite□of□these□limitations□our□data□show□that□a□complete□resection□
indicates□a□significantly□favorable□result."□There□is□no□data□supplied□in□this□paper□demonstrating□p□
values.□I□would□say,□"suggest□a□favorable□result".□
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_7_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 2,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 1,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.5,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 1.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "□Clinical□and□Immunohistochemical□Study□of□Eight□Cases□with□Thymic□Carcinoma Title: \nAuthors: \nMasaki□Tomita□( [email protected] )\nYasunori□Matsuzaki□( [email protected] )\nMasao□Edagawa□( [email protected] )\nMasayuki□Maeda□( [email protected] )\nTetsuya□Shimizu□( [email protected] )\nMasaki□Hara□( [email protected] )\nToshio□Onitsuka□( [email protected] )\n□2□ □21□Mar□2002 Version: Date: \nThe□paper□is□written□much□better.□Specific□comments□are□as□follows:□ \n1.□Page□4□(first□paragraph):□How□many□patients□with□thymic□carcinoma□were□seen□at□the□University□during \nthe□same□time□period□that□were□not□treated□surgically?□ \n2.□Page□6□(last□paragraph):□\"There□was□significant□difference...\"□Was□there□indeed□a□p□value□designated□ \nfor□this□or□is□this□supposed□to□be□obvious?□As□mentioned□previously,□with□the□small□number□of□patients□I□ \nthink□it□would□be□difficult□to□have□statistical□significance.□ \n3.□Page□8□(second□and□third□lines):□\"In□spite□of□these□limitations□our□data□show□that□a□complete□resection□ \nindicates□a□significantly□favorable□result.\"□There□is□no□data□supplied□in□this□paper□demonstrating□p□ \nvalues.□I□would□say,□\"suggest□a□favorable□result\".□ ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-2-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title:
predicting□acute□appendicitis
Authors:
Lucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )
Dominique□Bischof□( [email protected] )
Stefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )
Marco□Bonani□( [email protected] )
Franziska□Osann□( [email protected] )
Johann□Steurer□( [email protected] )
□1□ □13□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
□Dr□Dave□Flum Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication:
This□is□an□area□of□great□interest□to□the□surgical/radiologic□and□ER□medicine□communities□and□this□
proposed□project□is□quite□timely.□Our□group□attempted□to□do□this□very□same□project□last□year□and□
encountered□several□problems□that□I□believe□will□plague□these□researchers□as□well.□These□potential□
problems□do□not□represent□a□failing□of□the□study□design□(which□I□think□is□adequate)□but□rather□serious□
roadblocks□to□getting□this□study□completed□in□the□fashion□they□hope.□The□proposal□could□be□enriched□if□
they□make□a□priori□plans□to□deal□with□the□following;□
1)There□is□tremendous□variation□in□the□ways□reported□diagnostic□tests□are□performed□(helical□vs□
non-helical,□PR□contrast□alone□vs□PR□+□PO,□limited□cuts□through□the□pelvis□or□pelvis+abdomen)and□the□ best□published□reports□do□not□represent□the□most□current□techniques.□There□is□a□strong□inclination□to□
pool□these□results□as□"CT□scanning"□because□of□statistical□strength□in□numbers.□These□reports□however,□
represent□such□a□heterogeneous□group□that□such□pooling□(though□in□name□accurate)□provides□little□
information□of□clinical□relevance.□If□you□don't□pool□them,□your□are□left□with□1-2□poorly□designed□ prospective□trials□and□many□more□"case□series"□which□are□inherently□biased.□
2)What□will□the□authors□due□when□they□find□that□blinding□is□almost□never□reported□and□that□contacting□the
authors□about□blinding□undermines□the□claim□of□blinding?□
3)What□will□the□authors□do□when□they□find□that□there□is□a□moving□target□out□there□in□the□literature....where
some□studies□break□results□into□positive,□negative,□indeterminate□and□other□pathology,□other□researchers
divide□it□into□positive□or□negative.□Those□that□add□the□indeterminate□and□other□category□are□effectively□
taking□those□cases□out□of□consideration□for□the□dx□of□appendicitis□and□do□not□consider□them□part□of□the□ sensitivity/specificity□analyses□ 4)What□will□the□authors□do□when□they□find□that□most□studies□exclude□patients□with□"obvious□appendicitis"
but□give□no□information□about□dx□outcome□in□that□group.□This□both□biases□the□sample□population□and□
limits□the□pooling□of□data.□ 5)There□may□be□"gaming"□of□the□system□when□favorable□reports□are□published□(i.e□learning□curves□ among□radiologists□often□determine□when□they□start□their□"count")□.□As□such,□all□retrospective□studies□
should□be□removed□from□the□list□of□those□eligible□for□consideration.□
6)By□limiting□the□study□to□the□few□prospective□data□sources,□I□believe□the□researchers□will□be□unable□to□
complete□most□of□their□statistical□analyses□(for□lack□of□power)and□essentially□have□a□"negative□study"□
7)This□topic□is□better□suited□to□systematic□review□than□meta□analsysis.□I□think□this□should□be□the□focus□of□
the□project□rather□than□trying□to□generate□point□estimates□and□CI□from□highly□heterogeneous□source□data.
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title:
predicting□acute□appendicitis
Authors:
Lucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )
Dominique□Bischof□( [email protected] )
Stefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )
Marco□Bonani□( [email protected] )
Franziska□Osann□( [email protected] )
Johann□Steurer□( [email protected] )
□1□ □13□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
□Dr□Dave□Flum Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication:
This□is□an□area□of□great□interest□to□the□surgical/radiologic□and□ER□medicine□communities□and□this□
proposed□project□is□quite□timely.□Our□group□attempted□to□do□this□very□same□project□last□year□and□
encountered□several□problems□that□I□believe□will□plague□these□researchers□as□well.□These□potential□
problems□do□not□represent□a□failing□of□the□study□design□(which□I□think□is□adequate)□but□rather□serious□
roadblocks□to□getting□this□study□completed□in□the□fashion□they□hope.□The□proposal□could□be□enriched□if□
they□make□a□priori□plans□to□deal□with□the□following;□
1)There□is□tremendous□variation□in□the□ways□reported□diagnostic□tests□are□performed□(helical□vs□
non-helical,□PR□contrast□alone□vs□PR□+□PO,□limited□cuts□through□the□pelvis□or□pelvis+abdomen)and□the□ best□published□reports□do□not□represent□the□most□current□techniques.□There□is□a□strong□inclination□to□
pool□these□results□as□"CT□scanning"□because□of□statistical□strength□in□numbers.□These□reports□however,□
represent□such□a□heterogeneous□group□that□such□pooling□(though□in□name□accurate)□provides□little□
information□of□clinical□relevance.□If□you□don't□pool□them,□your□are□left□with□1-2□poorly□designed□ prospective□trials□and□many□more□"case□series"□which□are□inherently□biased.□
2)What□will□the□authors□due□when□they□find□that□blinding□is□almost□never□reported□and□that□contacting□the
authors□about□blinding□undermines□the□claim□of□blinding?□
3)What□will□the□authors□do□when□they□find□that□there□is□a□moving□target□out□there□in□the□literature....where
some□studies□break□results□into□positive,□negative,□indeterminate□and□other□pathology,□other□researchers
divide□it□into□positive□or□negative.□Those□that□add□the□indeterminate□and□other□category□are□effectively□
taking□those□cases□out□of□consideration□for□the□dx□of□appendicitis□and□do□not□consider□them□part□of□the□ sensitivity/specificity□analyses□ 4)What□will□the□authors□do□when□they□find□that□most□studies□exclude□patients□with□"obvious□appendicitis"
but□give□no□information□about□dx□outcome□in□that□group.□This□both□biases□the□sample□population□and□
limits□the□pooling□of□data.□ 5)There□may□be□"gaming"□of□the□system□when□favorable□reports□are□published□(i.e□learning□curves□ among□radiologists□often□determine□when□they□start□their□"count")□.□As□such,□all□retrospective□studies□
should□be□removed□from□the□list□of□those□eligible□for□consideration.□
6)By□limiting□the□study□to□the□few□prospective□data□sources,□I□believe□the□researchers□will□be□unable□to□
complete□most□of□their□statistical□analyses□(for□lack□of□power)and□essentially□have□a□"negative□study"□
7)This□topic□is□better□suited□to□systematic□review□than□meta□analsysis.□I□think□this□should□be□the□focus□of□
the□project□rather□than□trying□to□generate□point□estimates□and□CI□from□highly□heterogeneous□source□data.
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2002_6_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.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": 0,
"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
}
| 0.5
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title: \npredicting□acute□appendicitis \nAuthors: \nLucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )\nDominique□Bischof□( [email protected] )\nStefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )\nMarco□Bonani□( [email protected] )\nFranziska□Osann□( [email protected] )\nJohann□Steurer□( [email protected] )\n□1□ □13□Mar□2002 Version: Date: \n□Dr□Dave□Flum Reviewer: \n□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest: \n□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication: \nThis□is□an□area□of□great□interest□to□the□surgical/radiologic□and□ER□medicine□communities□and□this□ \nproposed□project□is□quite□timely.□Our□group□attempted□to□do□this□very□same□project□last□year□and□ \nencountered□several□problems□that□I□believe□will□plague□these□researchers□as□well.□These□potential□ \nproblems□do□not□represent□a□failing□of□the□study□design□(which□I□think□is□adequate)□but□rather□serious□ \nroadblocks□to□getting□this□study□completed□in□the□fashion□they□hope.□The□proposal□could□be□enriched□if□ \nthey□make□a□priori□plans□to□deal□with□the□following;□ \n1)There□is□tremendous□variation□in□the□ways□reported□diagnostic□tests□are□performed□(helical□vs□ \nnon-helical,□PR□contrast□alone□vs□PR□+□PO,□limited□cuts□through□the□pelvis□or□pelvis+abdomen)and□the□ best□published□reports□do□not□represent□the□most□current□techniques.□There□is□a□strong□inclination□to□ \npool□these□results□as□\"CT□scanning\"□because□of□statistical□strength□in□numbers.□These□reports□however,□ \nrepresent□such□a□heterogeneous□group□that□such□pooling□(though□in□name□accurate)□provides□little□ \ninformation□of□clinical□relevance.□If□you□don't□pool□them,□your□are□left□with□1-2□poorly□designed□ prospective□trials□and□many□more□\"case□series\"□which□are□inherently□biased.□ \n2)What□will□the□authors□due□when□they□find□that□blinding□is□almost□never□reported□and□that□contacting□the \nauthors□about□blinding□undermines□the□claim□of□blinding?□ \n3)What□will□the□authors□do□when□they□find□that□there□is□a□moving□target□out□there□in□the□literature....where \nsome□studies□break□results□into□positive,□negative,□indeterminate□and□other□pathology,□other□researchers \ndivide□it□into□positive□or□negative.□Those□that□add□the□indeterminate□and□other□category□are□effectively□ \ntaking□those□cases□out□of□consideration□for□the□dx□of□appendicitis□and□do□not□consider□them□part□of□the□ sensitivity/specificity□analyses□ 4)What□will□the□authors□do□when□they□find□that□most□studies□exclude□patients□with□\"obvious□appendicitis\" \nbut□give□no□information□about□dx□outcome□in□that□group.□This□both□biases□the□sample□population□and□ \nlimits□the□pooling□of□data.□ 5)There□may□be□\"gaming\"□of□the□system□when□favorable□reports□are□published□(i.e□learning□curves□ among□radiologists□often□determine□when□they□start□their□\"count\")□.□As□such,□all□retrospective□studies□ \nshould□be□removed□from□the□list□of□those□eligible□for□consideration.□ \n6)By□limiting□the□study□to□the□few□prospective□data□sources,□I□believe□the□researchers□will□be□unable□to□ \ncomplete□most□of□their□statistical□analyses□(for□lack□of□power)and□essentially□have□a□\"negative□study\"□ \n7)This□topic□is□better□suited□to□systematic□review□than□meta□analsysis.□I□think□this□should□be□the□focus□of□ \nthe□project□rather□than□trying□to□generate□point□estimates□and□CI□from□highly□heterogeneous□source□data. \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-2-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Systematic quantitative overviews of the literature to determine the value of diagnostic tests for Title:
predicting acute appendicitis
Authors:
Lucas M Bachmann ([email protected] )
Dominique Bischof ([email protected] )
Stefan A Bischofberger ([email protected] )
Marco Bonani ([email protected] )
Franziska Osann ([email protected] )
Johann Steurer ([email protected] )
1 18 Mar 2002 Version: Date:
Dr Stefan Sauerland Reviewer:
A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
Reject because scientifically unsound Advice on publication:
This manuscript describes the methods for a systematic review on methods in the
diagnosis of appendicitis. Within the last decades, the introduction of ultrasonography,
computer tomography, laparoscopy and new laboratory parameters have
broadened the diagnostic options for patients with suspected appendicitis. Therefore,
such reviews as proposed in this manuscript are of large clinical importance. Nevertheless,
this review protocol unfortunately contains several flaws with regard to
clinical background, clear aim, and review methods. I am unable to value the
statistical methods, but this part looks quite good. In the introduction, the authors state that quantitative reviews on the given topic are
currently lacking. This is simply not correct, as there are several diagnostic metaanalyses,
which fulfill high quality standards:
. With regard to signs and symptoms of appendicitis, Wagner et al. have reported a
superb meta-analysis (JAMA 1996; 276: 1589-1594). In their article, likelihood
ratios were combined for all major clinical signs, such as rebound tenderness or
migrating pain. . The potential of laboratory parameters in identifying patients with or without appendicitis has been addressed by Hallan and Asberg (Scand J Clin Lab Invest
1997; 57: 373-380). In their analysis, the summary ROC curve indicated that CRP
is not as helpful as previously thought. . To evaluate the importance of ultrasonography, Orr et al. pooled 17 studies (Acad Emerg Med 1995; 2: 644-650). Orr et al. recommended ultrasound only for
patients with unclear symptoms.
. Together with two colleagues, I recently published a Cochrane review on the value of diagnostic and/or therapeutic laparoscopy in patients with suspected appendicitis. Most probably, this review was not yet published at the time when
this manuscript was written, but data on diagnostic laparoscopy now indicate that
the rate of unnecessary appendectomies is reduced to about one fifth in fertile
women.
. I know of another meta-analysis on computer tomography which was begun about
a year ago and will be finished soon. Having these important meta-analyses in mind, I fear that the authors of the submitted manuscript are not familiar with the current knowledge base in their field.
Furthermore, their stated aim to review "the accuracy of all procedures in the
diagnosis of appendicitis" gives me reason to believe that they do not know what enourmos work this would mean. Such an endeavour would result in not one, but a large number of meta-analyses, and therefore would be extremely time-consuming.
This urges me to recommend the authors to restrict their review to only one or two
diagnostic possibilities in acute abdominal pain. For example, the available reviews
on laboratory parameters and sonography need to be updated.
To publish a review protocol before the review is begun, is an idea that was introduced
by the Cochrane Collaboration in order to safeguard against manipulations of
meta-analyses from a posteriori. Thus, a diagnostic review protocol is worth publishing,- but only if the methods are described in enough detail. However, the protocol currently is very vague in many aspects:
. The literature search performed by the authors yielded 800 citations. This shows
that only a minor proportion of relevant articles has been identified. In contrast, a simple PubMed search performed by myself with the MeSH-heading "appendicitis/
diagnosis" identifies 4.567 articles.
. A review protocol must describe, how exactly the literature will be searched. This
includes a list of search terms (MeSH's). Furthermore, the hand search of
conference proceedings must be described in more detail. What happens if only a
congress abstract is available? Will all languages be searched?
. The authors speak of searching DARE and the Cochrane Library. In truth, DARE
(Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) is a part of the Cochrane
Library. Bearing this and the previous comments in mind, I fear again that the authors are not
very familiar with expert literature searches. This surprises me, since the Horten
centre is a well-known authority in the field of evidence-based medicine.
The study selection criteria are also unclear: . First, a gold standard is required against which the test is compared. This
reference standard will be most likely the pathologist's report concerning the
resected appendix specimen, but the review protocol does not say so explicitly. What is the reference standard in those patients, who are discharged home, because appendicitis is unlikely? Are primary studies required to have a minimum
follow-up to make sure that none of the patients later underwent appendectomy in
another hospital? Otherwise, the rate of false-negatives will be biased. It is insufficient to mention only that the reviewers will "look for evidence of verification bias".
. Since the aim of the review is the comparison of diagnostic options, it is important
to discern between studies which compared two tests against the gold standard or only one. . In these studies with two tests (eg leukocytes and CRP), the presence of work-up
bias should be assessed. Studies that measured leukocytes in all patients, but
CRP only in those with borderline leukocytosis will be more likely to underestimate the comparative accuracy of CRP. . Another foreseeable key problem of the review will be that many diagnostic tests
are correlated among each other. If we assume that CRP and leukocytes are
highly correlated, both will probably have excellet statistical accuracy. Clinically,
however, the additional determination of CRP will then still be worthless.
Therefore, primary studies are of special value, if they compared a test "A" against a combination of "A" and "B" instead of simply comparing "A" versus "B". . The inclusion of studies on prediction rules will cause similar problems, because
these studies will most likely report on a combination of more than a few tests.
. The patient collectives are not defined. What exactly is the "appropriate spectrum of elegible patients"? Will studies be included that examined patients with acute abdomen, too? Or is the review restricted to patients with more specific pain, e.g.
in the right lower quadrant?
. In my opinion, it is important whether a study recruited patients consecutively or
not. This should be assessed, since it may be a sign of work-up bias.
. Some sensitivity analyses should be defined a priori to compare the included
studies in groups among each other. Due to the higher prevalence of gynaecologic
diseases in young women, it seems reasonable to keep studies on women separately. Paediatric studies should be treated similarly, and shouldn't be mixed
with studies on unselected patient groups. Other sensitivity analyses should
address differences in study design and methods (eg blinding).
. How will randomised intervention studies and observational cohort studies be combined?
. Will costs be considered in the review?
Some comments on language and writing style.
. It is not good style to simply repeat sentences from the abstract in the
introduction.
. Replace "if" with "whether" at the end of the paragraph on "study identification".
. The word "manipulation" in the paragraph on "analysis" should be replaced.
. Leukocytes are cells and shouldn't be summarized under the heading
"Inflammatory mediators" in Table 1. . Laparoscopy is mispelled in Table 1.
. The appendix mentioned on page 5 is missing.
Summary
The current manuscript needs major revisions to become acceptable. Perhaps, the methods of the review should be reported only together with the completed review. It
is clear, that the review protocol requires definite changes in the following points
. Focus of the review. . Literature searches. . Assessment of primary studies.
. Sensitivity analyses.
. Details of literature appraisal. Level of interest:
A paper of limited interest, (but the completed review will probably contain important
conclusions.)
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer's report
Systematic quantitative overviews of the literature to determine the value of diagnostic tests for Title:
predicting acute appendicitis
Authors:
Lucas M Bachmann ([email protected] )
Dominique Bischof ([email protected] )
Stefan A Bischofberger ([email protected] )
Marco Bonani ([email protected] )
Franziska Osann ([email protected] )
Johann Steurer ([email protected] )
1 18 Mar 2002 Version: Date:
Dr Stefan Sauerland Reviewer:
A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
Reject because scientifically unsound Advice on publication:
This manuscript describes the methods for a systematic review on methods in the
diagnosis of appendicitis. Within the last decades, the introduction of ultrasonography,
computer tomography, laparoscopy and new laboratory parameters have
broadened the diagnostic options for patients with suspected appendicitis. Therefore,
such reviews as proposed in this manuscript are of large clinical importance. Nevertheless,
this review protocol unfortunately contains several flaws with regard to
clinical background, clear aim, and review methods. I am unable to value the
statistical methods, but this part looks quite good. In the introduction, the authors state that quantitative reviews on the given topic are
currently lacking. This is simply not correct, as there are several diagnostic metaanalyses,
which fulfill high quality standards:
. With regard to signs and symptoms of appendicitis, Wagner et al. have reported a
superb meta-analysis (JAMA 1996; 276: 1589-1594). In their article, likelihood
ratios were combined for all major clinical signs, such as rebound tenderness or
migrating pain. . The potential of laboratory parameters in identifying patients with or without appendicitis has been addressed by Hallan and Asberg (Scand J Clin Lab Invest
1997; 57: 373-380). In their analysis, the summary ROC curve indicated that CRP
is not as helpful as previously thought. . To evaluate the importance of ultrasonography, Orr et al. pooled 17 studies (Acad Emerg Med 1995; 2: 644-650). Orr et al. recommended ultrasound only for
patients with unclear symptoms.
. Together with two colleagues, I recently published a Cochrane review on the value of diagnostic and/or therapeutic laparoscopy in patients with suspected appendicitis. Most probably, this review was not yet published at the time when
this manuscript was written, but data on diagnostic laparoscopy now indicate that
the rate of unnecessary appendectomies is reduced to about one fifth in fertile
women.
. I know of another meta-analysis on computer tomography which was begun about
a year ago and will be finished soon. Having these important meta-analyses in mind, I fear that the authors of the submitted manuscript are not familiar with the current knowledge base in their field.
Furthermore, their stated aim to review "the accuracy of all procedures in the
diagnosis of appendicitis" gives me reason to believe that they do not know what enourmos work this would mean. Such an endeavour would result in not one, but a large number of meta-analyses, and therefore would be extremely time-consuming.
This urges me to recommend the authors to restrict their review to only one or two
diagnostic possibilities in acute abdominal pain. For example, the available reviews
on laboratory parameters and sonography need to be updated.
To publish a review protocol before the review is begun, is an idea that was introduced
by the Cochrane Collaboration in order to safeguard against manipulations of
meta-analyses from a posteriori. Thus, a diagnostic review protocol is worth publishing,- but only if the methods are described in enough detail. However, the protocol currently is very vague in many aspects:
. The literature search performed by the authors yielded 800 citations. This shows
that only a minor proportion of relevant articles has been identified. In contrast, a simple PubMed search performed by myself with the MeSH-heading "appendicitis/
diagnosis" identifies 4.567 articles.
. A review protocol must describe, how exactly the literature will be searched. This
includes a list of search terms (MeSH's). Furthermore, the hand search of
conference proceedings must be described in more detail. What happens if only a
congress abstract is available? Will all languages be searched?
. The authors speak of searching DARE and the Cochrane Library. In truth, DARE
(Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) is a part of the Cochrane
Library. Bearing this and the previous comments in mind, I fear again that the authors are not
very familiar with expert literature searches. This surprises me, since the Horten
centre is a well-known authority in the field of evidence-based medicine.
The study selection criteria are also unclear: . First, a gold standard is required against which the test is compared. This
reference standard will be most likely the pathologist's report concerning the
resected appendix specimen, but the review protocol does not say so explicitly. What is the reference standard in those patients, who are discharged home, because appendicitis is unlikely? Are primary studies required to have a minimum
follow-up to make sure that none of the patients later underwent appendectomy in
another hospital? Otherwise, the rate of false-negatives will be biased. It is insufficient to mention only that the reviewers will "look for evidence of verification bias".
. Since the aim of the review is the comparison of diagnostic options, it is important
to discern between studies which compared two tests against the gold standard or only one. . In these studies with two tests (eg leukocytes and CRP), the presence of work-up
bias should be assessed. Studies that measured leukocytes in all patients, but
CRP only in those with borderline leukocytosis will be more likely to underestimate the comparative accuracy of CRP. . Another foreseeable key problem of the review will be that many diagnostic tests
are correlated among each other. If we assume that CRP and leukocytes are
highly correlated, both will probably have excellet statistical accuracy. Clinically,
however, the additional determination of CRP will then still be worthless.
Therefore, primary studies are of special value, if they compared a test "A" against a combination of "A" and "B" instead of simply comparing "A" versus "B". . The inclusion of studies on prediction rules will cause similar problems, because
these studies will most likely report on a combination of more than a few tests.
. The patient collectives are not defined. What exactly is the "appropriate spectrum of elegible patients"? Will studies be included that examined patients with acute abdomen, too? Or is the review restricted to patients with more specific pain, e.g.
in the right lower quadrant?
. In my opinion, it is important whether a study recruited patients consecutively or
not. This should be assessed, since it may be a sign of work-up bias.
. Some sensitivity analyses should be defined a priori to compare the included
studies in groups among each other. Due to the higher prevalence of gynaecologic
diseases in young women, it seems reasonable to keep studies on women separately. Paediatric studies should be treated similarly, and shouldn't be mixed
with studies on unselected patient groups. Other sensitivity analyses should
address differences in study design and methods (eg blinding).
. How will randomised intervention studies and observational cohort studies be combined?
. Will costs be considered in the review?
Some comments on language and writing style.
. It is not good style to simply repeat sentences from the abstract in the
introduction.
. Replace "if" with "whether" at the end of the paragraph on "study identification".
. The word "manipulation" in the paragraph on "analysis" should be replaced.
. Leukocytes are cells and shouldn't be summarized under the heading
"Inflammatory mediators" in Table 1. . Laparoscopy is mispelled in Table 1.
. The appendix mentioned on page 5 is missing.
Summary
The current manuscript needs major revisions to become acceptable. Perhaps, the methods of the review should be reported only together with the completed review. It
is clear, that the review protocol requires definite changes in the following points
. Focus of the review. . Literature searches. . Assessment of primary studies.
. Sensitivity analyses.
. Details of literature appraisal. Level of interest:
A paper of limited interest, (but the completed review will probably contain important
conclusions.)
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2002_6_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 17,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 7,
"materials_and_methods": 49,
"praise": 4,
"presentation_and_reporting": 18,
"results_and_discussion": 8,
"suggestion_and_solution": 19,
"total": 107
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.1588785046728972,
"example": 0.037383177570093455,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.06542056074766354,
"materials_and_methods": 0.45794392523364486,
"praise": 0.037383177570093455,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.16822429906542055,
"results_and_discussion": 0.07476635514018691,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.17757009345794392
}
| 1.17757
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report\n Systematic quantitative overviews of the literature to determine the value of diagnostic tests for Title:\npredicting acute appendicitis\nAuthors:\nLucas M Bachmann ([email protected] )\nDominique Bischof ([email protected] )\nStefan A Bischofberger ([email protected] )\nMarco Bonani ([email protected] )\nFranziska Osann ([email protected] )\nJohann Steurer ([email protected] )\n 1 18 Mar 2002 Version: Date:\n Dr Stefan Sauerland Reviewer:\n A paper of limited interest Level of interest:\n Reject because scientifically unsound Advice on publication:\nThis manuscript describes the methods for a systematic review on methods in the \ndiagnosis of appendicitis. Within the last decades, the introduction of ultrasonography, \ncomputer tomography, laparoscopy and new laboratory parameters have \nbroadened the diagnostic options for patients with suspected appendicitis. Therefore, \nsuch reviews as proposed in this manuscript are of large clinical importance. Nevertheless, \nthis review protocol unfortunately contains several flaws with regard to \nclinical background, clear aim, and review methods. I am unable to value the \nstatistical methods, but this part looks quite good. In the introduction, the authors state that quantitative reviews on the given topic are \ncurrently lacking. This is simply not correct, as there are several diagnostic metaanalyses, \nwhich fulfill high quality standards: \n. With regard to signs and symptoms of appendicitis, Wagner et al. have reported a \nsuperb meta-analysis (JAMA 1996; 276: 1589-1594). In their article, likelihood \nratios were combined for all major clinical signs, such as rebound tenderness or \nmigrating pain. . The potential of laboratory parameters in identifying patients with or without appendicitis has been addressed by Hallan and Asberg (Scand J Clin Lab Invest \n1997; 57: 373-380). In their analysis, the summary ROC curve indicated that CRP \nis not as helpful as previously thought. . To evaluate the importance of ultrasonography, Orr et al. pooled 17 studies (Acad Emerg Med 1995; 2: 644-650). Orr et al. recommended ultrasound only for \npatients with unclear symptoms. \n. Together with two colleagues, I recently published a Cochrane review on the value of diagnostic and/or therapeutic laparoscopy in patients with suspected appendicitis. Most probably, this review was not yet published at the time when \nthis manuscript was written, but data on diagnostic laparoscopy now indicate that \nthe rate of unnecessary appendectomies is reduced to about one fifth in fertile \nwomen. \n. I know of another meta-analysis on computer tomography which was begun about \na year ago and will be finished soon. Having these important meta-analyses in mind, I fear that the authors of the submitted manuscript are not familiar with the current knowledge base in their field. \nFurthermore, their stated aim to review \"the accuracy of all procedures in the \ndiagnosis of appendicitis\" gives me reason to believe that they do not know what enourmos work this would mean. Such an endeavour would result in not one, but a large number of meta-analyses, and therefore would be extremely time-consuming. \nThis urges me to recommend the authors to restrict their review to only one or two \ndiagnostic possibilities in acute abdominal pain. For example, the available reviews \non laboratory parameters and sonography need to be updated. \nTo publish a review protocol before the review is begun, is an idea that was introduced \nby the Cochrane Collaboration in order to safeguard against manipulations of \nmeta-analyses from a posteriori. Thus, a diagnostic review protocol is worth publishing,- but only if the methods are described in enough detail. However, the protocol currently is very vague in many aspects: \n. The literature search performed by the authors yielded 800 citations. This shows \nthat only a minor proportion of relevant articles has been identified. In contrast, a simple PubMed search performed by myself with the MeSH-heading \"appendicitis/ \ndiagnosis\" identifies 4.567 articles. \n. A review protocol must describe, how exactly the literature will be searched. This \nincludes a list of search terms (MeSH's). Furthermore, the hand search of \nconference proceedings must be described in more detail. What happens if only a \ncongress abstract is available? Will all languages be searched? \n. The authors speak of searching DARE and the Cochrane Library. In truth, DARE \n(Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) is a part of the Cochrane \nLibrary. Bearing this and the previous comments in mind, I fear again that the authors are not \nvery familiar with expert literature searches. This surprises me, since the Horten \ncentre is a well-known authority in the field of evidence-based medicine. \nThe study selection criteria are also unclear: . First, a gold standard is required against which the test is compared. This \nreference standard will be most likely the pathologist's report concerning the \nresected appendix specimen, but the review protocol does not say so explicitly. What is the reference standard in those patients, who are discharged home, because appendicitis is unlikely? Are primary studies required to have a minimum \nfollow-up to make sure that none of the patients later underwent appendectomy in \nanother hospital? Otherwise, the rate of false-negatives will be biased. It is insufficient to mention only that the reviewers will \"look for evidence of verification bias\". \n. Since the aim of the review is the comparison of diagnostic options, it is important \nto discern between studies which compared two tests against the gold standard or only one. . In these studies with two tests (eg leukocytes and CRP), the presence of work-up \nbias should be assessed. Studies that measured leukocytes in all patients, but \nCRP only in those with borderline leukocytosis will be more likely to underestimate the comparative accuracy of CRP. . Another foreseeable key problem of the review will be that many diagnostic tests \nare correlated among each other. If we assume that CRP and leukocytes are \nhighly correlated, both will probably have excellet statistical accuracy. Clinically, \nhowever, the additional determination of CRP will then still be worthless. \nTherefore, primary studies are of special value, if they compared a test \"A\" against a combination of \"A\" and \"B\" instead of simply comparing \"A\" versus \"B\". . The inclusion of studies on prediction rules will cause similar problems, because \nthese studies will most likely report on a combination of more than a few tests. \n. The patient collectives are not defined. What exactly is the \"appropriate spectrum of elegible patients\"? Will studies be included that examined patients with acute abdomen, too? Or is the review restricted to patients with more specific pain, e.g. \nin the right lower quadrant? \n. In my opinion, it is important whether a study recruited patients consecutively or \nnot. This should be assessed, since it may be a sign of work-up bias. \n. Some sensitivity analyses should be defined a priori to compare the included \nstudies in groups among each other. Due to the higher prevalence of gynaecologic \ndiseases in young women, it seems reasonable to keep studies on women separately. Paediatric studies should be treated similarly, and shouldn't be mixed \nwith studies on unselected patient groups. Other sensitivity analyses should \naddress differences in study design and methods (eg blinding). \n. How will randomised intervention studies and observational cohort studies be combined? \n. Will costs be considered in the review? \nSome comments on language and writing style. \n. It is not good style to simply repeat sentences from the abstract in the \nintroduction. \n. Replace \"if\" with \"whether\" at the end of the paragraph on \"study identification\". \n. The word \"manipulation\" in the paragraph on \"analysis\" should be replaced. \n. Leukocytes are cells and shouldn't be summarized under the heading \n\"Inflammatory mediators\" in Table 1. . Laparoscopy is mispelled in Table 1. \n. The appendix mentioned on page 5 is missing. \nSummary \nThe current manuscript needs major revisions to become acceptable. Perhaps, the methods of the review should be reported only together with the completed review. It \nis clear, that the review protocol requires definite changes in the following points \n. Focus of the review. . Literature searches. . Assessment of primary studies. \n. Sensitivity analyses. \n. Details of literature appraisal. Level of interest: \nA paper of limited interest, (but the completed review will probably contain important \nconclusions.)\nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-2-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title:
predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol
Authors:
Lucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )
Dominique□B□Bischof□( [email protected] )
Stefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )
Marco□G□Bonani□( [email protected] )
Franziska□M□Osann□( [email protected] )
Johann□Steurer□( [email protected] )
□2□ □25□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
□Dr□Stefan□Sauerland Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□considerable□general□medical□or□scientific□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication:
In□its□revised□version□the□manuscript□"Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□
the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol"□has□been□clearly□
improved.□Many□of□the□critical□aspects□have□been□clarified□and□the□appendices□provide□enough□detail□to□
understand□the□review□methods.□
Therefore,□the□manuscript□now□seems□acceptable□for□publication.□
I□will□be□delighted□in□a□few□years□time□to□read□about□the□results□of□this□enormous□project.□In□the□following□
points,□perhaps□some□last□minor□changes□could□be□added:□
1.□I□still□think□that□the□already□published□meta-analyses,□which□I□cited□in□my□first□comments,□deserve□to□
be□at□least□mentioned.□If□the□authors□think□that□these□meta-analyses□have□important□limitations,□they□can□
say□so,□but□in□my□eyes,□it□is□too□harsh□to□state□that□there□is□"a□dearth□of□focused,□rigorous□overviews".□
2.□My□primary□concern,□that□perhaps□the□authors□of□this□manuscript□were□not□familiar□with□the□current□
knowledge□in□their□field,□was□misunderstood.□I□did□not□mean□their□methodological,□but□their□clinical□ background,□because□the□existing□meta-analyses□weren't□mentioned□at□all.□
3.□The□meta-analysis□on□computed□tomography□which□I□mentioned□is□led□by□Prof.□Christian□Ohmann□in□
Dusseldorf.□Perhaps,□it□is□useful□to□contact□him□([email protected])□to□avoid□duplication□of□
work.□
4.□When□stating□that□it□is□problematic□to□combine□a□randomised□and□an□observational□study,□I□had□the□
following□scenario□in□mind:□One□(cohort)□study□describes□sensitivity□and□specificify□of□a□diagnostic□test,□
and□a□second□(randomised)□study□uses□this□diagnostic□test□only□in□half□of□patients.□How□can□data□from□ these□two□studies□agregated?□As□already□suggested□by□the□second□reviewer,□systematic□reviewing□may□ be□the□better□alternative□here□instead□of□pooling.□
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title:
predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol
Authors:
Lucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )
Dominique□B□Bischof□( [email protected] )
Stefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )
Marco□G□Bonani□( [email protected] )
Franziska□M□Osann□( [email protected] )
Johann□Steurer□( [email protected] )
□2□ □25□Mar□2002 Version: Date:
□Dr□Stefan□Sauerland Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□considerable□general□medical□or□scientific□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication:
In□its□revised□version□the□manuscript□"Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□
the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol"□has□been□clearly□
improved.□Many□of□the□critical□aspects□have□been□clarified□and□the□appendices□provide□enough□detail□to□
understand□the□review□methods.□
Therefore,□the□manuscript□now□seems□acceptable□for□publication.□
I□will□be□delighted□in□a□few□years□time□to□read□about□the□results□of□this□enormous□project.□In□the□following□
points,□perhaps□some□last□minor□changes□could□be□added:□
1.□I□still□think□that□the□already□published□meta-analyses,□which□I□cited□in□my□first□comments,□deserve□to□
be□at□least□mentioned.□If□the□authors□think□that□these□meta-analyses□have□important□limitations,□they□can□
say□so,□but□in□my□eyes,□it□is□too□harsh□to□state□that□there□is□"a□dearth□of□focused,□rigorous□overviews".□
2.□My□primary□concern,□that□perhaps□the□authors□of□this□manuscript□were□not□familiar□with□the□current□
knowledge□in□their□field,□was□misunderstood.□I□did□not□mean□their□methodological,□but□their□clinical□ background,□because□the□existing□meta-analyses□weren't□mentioned□at□all.□
3.□The□meta-analysis□on□computed□tomography□which□I□mentioned□is□led□by□Prof.□Christian□Ohmann□in□
Dusseldorf.□Perhaps,□it□is□useful□to□contact□him□([email protected])□to□avoid□duplication□of□
work.□
4.□When□stating□that□it□is□problematic□to□combine□a□randomised□and□an□observational□study,□I□had□the□
following□scenario□in□mind:□One□(cohort)□study□describes□sensitivity□and□specificify□of□a□diagnostic□test,□
and□a□second□(randomised)□study□uses□this□diagnostic□test□only□in□half□of□patients.□How□can□data□from□ these□two□studies□agregated?□As□already□suggested□by□the□second□reviewer,□systematic□reviewing□may□ be□the□better□alternative□here□instead□of□pooling.□
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2002_6_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": 0,
"total": 1
}
|
{
"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": 0
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title: \npredicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol\nAuthors: \nLucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )\nDominique□B□Bischof□( [email protected] )\nStefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )\nMarco□G□Bonani□( [email protected] )\nFranziska□M□Osann□( [email protected] )\nJohann□Steurer□( [email protected] )\n□2□ □25□Mar□2002 Version: Date: \n□Dr□Stefan□Sauerland Reviewer: \n□A□paper□of□considerable□general□medical□or□scientific□interest Level□of□interest: \n□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication: \nIn□its□revised□version□the□manuscript□\"Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□ \nthe□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol\"□has□been□clearly□ \nimproved.□Many□of□the□critical□aspects□have□been□clarified□and□the□appendices□provide□enough□detail□to□ \nunderstand□the□review□methods.□ \nTherefore,□the□manuscript□now□seems□acceptable□for□publication.□ \nI□will□be□delighted□in□a□few□years□time□to□read□about□the□results□of□this□enormous□project.□In□the□following□ \npoints,□perhaps□some□last□minor□changes□could□be□added:□ \n1.□I□still□think□that□the□already□published□meta-analyses,□which□I□cited□in□my□first□comments,□deserve□to□ \nbe□at□least□mentioned.□If□the□authors□think□that□these□meta-analyses□have□important□limitations,□they□can□ \nsay□so,□but□in□my□eyes,□it□is□too□harsh□to□state□that□there□is□\"a□dearth□of□focused,□rigorous□overviews\".□ \n2.□My□primary□concern,□that□perhaps□the□authors□of□this□manuscript□were□not□familiar□with□the□current□ \nknowledge□in□their□field,□was□misunderstood.□I□did□not□mean□their□methodological,□but□their□clinical□ background,□because□the□existing□meta-analyses□weren't□mentioned□at□all.□ \n3.□The□meta-analysis□on□computed□tomography□which□I□mentioned□is□led□by□Prof.□Christian□Ohmann□in□ \nDusseldorf.□Perhaps,□it□is□useful□to□contact□him□([email protected])□to□avoid□duplication□of□ \nwork.□ \n4.□When□stating□that□it□is□problematic□to□combine□a□randomised□and□an□observational□study,□I□had□the□ \nfollowing□scenario□in□mind:□One□(cohort)□study□describes□sensitivity□and□specificify□of□a□diagnostic□test,□ \nand□a□second□(randomised)□study□uses□this□diagnostic□test□only□in□half□of□patients.□How□can□data□from□ these□two□studies□agregated?□As□already□suggested□by□the□second□reviewer,□systematic□reviewing□may□ be□the□better□alternative□here□instead□of□pooling.□ \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-2-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title:
predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol
Authors:
Lucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )
Dominique□B□Bischof□( [email protected] )
Stefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )
Marco□G□Bonani□( [email protected] )
Franziska□M□Osann□( [email protected] )
Johann□Steurer□( [email protected] )
□2□ □9□Apr□2002 Version: Date:
□Dr□Dave□Flum Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication:
I□think□the□authors□responses□to□my□comments□were□appropriate□and□that□it□would□be□reasonable□to□
publish□this□work.□As□I□stated□in□my□comments□however,□the□question□of□whether□or□not□plans□for□
research□should□be□published□in□peer□reviewed□journals□is□one□that□should□be□left□to□the□discretion□of□the□
journal's□editoral□leadership.
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title:
predicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol
Authors:
Lucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )
Dominique□B□Bischof□( [email protected] )
Stefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )
Marco□G□Bonani□( [email protected] )
Franziska□M□Osann□( [email protected] )
Johann□Steurer□( [email protected] )
□2□ □9□Apr□2002 Version: Date:
□Dr□Dave□Flum Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication:
I□think□the□authors□responses□to□my□comments□were□appropriate□and□that□it□would□be□reasonable□to□
publish□this□work.□As□I□stated□in□my□comments□however,□the□question□of□whether□or□not□plans□for□
research□should□be□published□in□peer□reviewed□journals□is□one□that□should□be□left□to□the□discretion□of□the□
journal's□editoral□leadership.
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2002_6_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 2
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 0
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□Systematic□quantitative□overviews□of□the□literature□to□determine□the□value□of□diagnostic□tests□for□ Title: \npredicting□acute□appendicitis:□study□protocol\nAuthors: \nLucas□M□Bachmann□( [email protected] )\nDominique□B□Bischof□( [email protected] )\nStefan□A□Bischofberger□( [email protected] )\nMarco□G□Bonani□( [email protected] )\nFranziska□M□Osann□( [email protected] )\nJohann□Steurer□( [email protected] )\n□2□ □9□Apr□2002 Version: Date: \n□Dr□Dave□Flum Reviewer: \n□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest: \n□Accept□after□discretionary□revisions Advice□on□publication: \nI□think□the□authors□responses□to□my□comments□were□appropriate□and□that□it□would□be□reasonable□to□ \npublish□this□work.□As□I□stated□in□my□comments□however,□the□question□of□whether□or□not□plans□for□ \nresearch□should□be□published□in□peer□reviewed□journals□is□one□that□should□be□left□to□the□discretion□of□the□ \njournal's□editoral□leadership. \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-2-1
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Is Endosonography an effective method for the local staging of the ampullary carcinoma? : A Title:
prospective study.
Authors:
Panagiotis Skordilis ([email protected] )
Philippos Dimoulios ([email protected] )
Georgios Alexandrakis ([email protected] )
Joanna Moschandrea ([email protected] )
Ioannis Mouzas ([email protected] )
Elias Kouroumalis ([email protected] )
1 29 Nov 2001 Version: Date:
Dr Mohamad Eloubeidi Reviewer:
A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded Advice on publication:
to the compulsory revisions
This is a 7 year ? retrospective study that compared different staging modalities ( CT, US, EUS), for
ampullary cancer. EUS is certainly a novel and important technique to stage ampullary cancer. This experience supports the current literature and is of potential interest to the endosonography readership in particular and the GI community at large. However, significant details are lacking from the paper to
make it ready for publication
Major Comments
1)It would be useful to provide a summary table of the 1997 TNM classification for ampullary cancer
since most physician ( even endosonographer) do not remember it and it will be helpful to the readership. 2) It is a little surprising that none of the tumors were classified as T1 and 17 patients had nodal
involvement already. It seems that most patients had advanced disease, which does not support the
behavior of ampullary cancer. In addition, there is no report of under staging or over staging by EUS
which is a common phenomenon.
3) if the thrust of the paper is to show the superiority of EUS in detection and staging, the results should
highlight these aspects more. For example, when taking about sensitivity and specificity of EUS, it
needs to be compared in a table format to that of CT and US in comparison to surgery 4) Indirect sign of disease by US/CT is not defined and is important: it needs to be highlighted in the method section: is it the presence of dilated ducts with or without a mass? Is it lymphadenopathy? Is it a
vague area in the ampulla or a prominent ampulla
5) When describing node status what criteria did the authors use. Did they classify as present or absent
and assumed if a lymph node is present then it is malignant. Did the authors use well established
criteria by Endosnography ( Catalano et al and Tio et al to determine and pre-operatively classify these
lesions?
Since ERCP and stent placement could have preceded EUS, inflammatory LN could have present due
to inflammation. It is therefore important to use criteria for classification.
6) Were all pancreatic ducts dilated by ERCP, since the authors reported that only 6/20 were dilated.
7) Survival analysis: the p value is not reported. It is also helpful to give the Kaplan-Meyer survival curves if available. 8) the authors apparently reported on the role of ERCP in this patient population. They might need to
have a disclaimer in the method section
9) No IRB approval was obtained. Do they have one at Crete Medical school? Where the patients informed about the study? 10) The authors report at the end of the results section that " EUS was significantly better than both CT
and US (11) " We were unable to distinguish with accuracy between non-metastatic lymphadenopathy
and distant metastasis" is a very vague sentence. It is helpful again if the authors tell us how they
decided on malignant involvement of LNs. Despite its excellent T and N accuracy, EUS is unable to give
info on distant metastasis.
12) Figures need further labeling especially the EUS pictures. It is important to label the tumor, the
muscularis propria, evidence of invasion when appropriate. It is also useful to label LN. No all readers are familiar with EUS pictures
13) Last page of discussion, the authors do not have enough data to support the use or lack of spiral CT
in further staging. " no further technique is required". Again, while EUS is superior in T and N staging, it
does not provide a complete survey of the liver and therefore CT is still useful in that regard. 14) Finally, the paper will benefit from an expert medical editor.
Minor comments
1) cover page: Medical school of Crete .... Needs to be changed to the usual format for institutions.
2) Abstract:
. Background: Needs to be re-written.
. Conclusion: Needs to be more specific based on the results of the study
3) Results: Fever is > 37.5 is not a universal criteria.
4) Raised need to be changed to elevated 5) Page 10 of the discussion, " the accuracy of EUS in predicting......to be 63 and 59%" it is more appropriate to say that the results varied between 59 and 63%. The authors need to comment why they
think their results are different. Do they have more advanced tumors?
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer's report
Is Endosonography an effective method for the local staging of the ampullary carcinoma? : A Title:
prospective study.
Authors:
Panagiotis Skordilis ([email protected] )
Philippos Dimoulios ([email protected] )
Georgios Alexandrakis ([email protected] )
Joanna Moschandrea ([email protected] )
Ioannis Mouzas ([email protected] )
Elias Kouroumalis ([email protected] )
1 29 Nov 2001 Version: Date:
Dr Mohamad Eloubeidi Reviewer:
A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded Advice on publication:
to the compulsory revisions
This is a 7 year ? retrospective study that compared different staging modalities ( CT, US, EUS), for
ampullary cancer. EUS is certainly a novel and important technique to stage ampullary cancer. This experience supports the current literature and is of potential interest to the endosonography readership in particular and the GI community at large. However, significant details are lacking from the paper to
make it ready for publication
Major Comments
1)It would be useful to provide a summary table of the 1997 TNM classification for ampullary cancer
since most physician ( even endosonographer) do not remember it and it will be helpful to the readership. 2) It is a little surprising that none of the tumors were classified as T1 and 17 patients had nodal
involvement already. It seems that most patients had advanced disease, which does not support the
behavior of ampullary cancer. In addition, there is no report of under staging or over staging by EUS
which is a common phenomenon.
3) if the thrust of the paper is to show the superiority of EUS in detection and staging, the results should
highlight these aspects more. For example, when taking about sensitivity and specificity of EUS, it
needs to be compared in a table format to that of CT and US in comparison to surgery 4) Indirect sign of disease by US/CT is not defined and is important: it needs to be highlighted in the method section: is it the presence of dilated ducts with or without a mass? Is it lymphadenopathy? Is it a
vague area in the ampulla or a prominent ampulla
5) When describing node status what criteria did the authors use. Did they classify as present or absent
and assumed if a lymph node is present then it is malignant. Did the authors use well established
criteria by Endosnography ( Catalano et al and Tio et al to determine and pre-operatively classify these
lesions?
Since ERCP and stent placement could have preceded EUS, inflammatory LN could have present due
to inflammation. It is therefore important to use criteria for classification.
6) Were all pancreatic ducts dilated by ERCP, since the authors reported that only 6/20 were dilated.
7) Survival analysis: the p value is not reported. It is also helpful to give the Kaplan-Meyer survival curves if available. 8) the authors apparently reported on the role of ERCP in this patient population. They might need to
have a disclaimer in the method section
9) No IRB approval was obtained. Do they have one at Crete Medical school? Where the patients informed about the study? 10) The authors report at the end of the results section that " EUS was significantly better than both CT
and US (11) " We were unable to distinguish with accuracy between non-metastatic lymphadenopathy
and distant metastasis" is a very vague sentence. It is helpful again if the authors tell us how they
decided on malignant involvement of LNs. Despite its excellent T and N accuracy, EUS is unable to give
info on distant metastasis.
12) Figures need further labeling especially the EUS pictures. It is important to label the tumor, the
muscularis propria, evidence of invasion when appropriate. It is also useful to label LN. No all readers are familiar with EUS pictures
13) Last page of discussion, the authors do not have enough data to support the use or lack of spiral CT
in further staging. " no further technique is required". Again, while EUS is superior in T and N staging, it
does not provide a complete survey of the liver and therefore CT is still useful in that regard. 14) Finally, the paper will benefit from an expert medical editor.
Minor comments
1) cover page: Medical school of Crete .... Needs to be changed to the usual format for institutions.
2) Abstract:
. Background: Needs to be re-written.
. Conclusion: Needs to be more specific based on the results of the study
3) Results: Fever is > 37.5 is not a universal criteria.
4) Raised need to be changed to elevated 5) Page 10 of the discussion, " the accuracy of EUS in predicting......to be 63 and 59%" it is more appropriate to say that the results varied between 59 and 63%. The authors need to comment why they
think their results are different. Do they have more advanced tumors?
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_5_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 6,
"example": 4,
"importance_and_relevance": 3,
"materials_and_methods": 20,
"praise": 4,
"presentation_and_reporting": 13,
"results_and_discussion": 7,
"suggestion_and_solution": 16,
"total": 45
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.13333333333333333,
"example": 0.08888888888888889,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.06666666666666667,
"materials_and_methods": 0.4444444444444444,
"praise": 0.08888888888888889,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.28888888888888886,
"results_and_discussion": 0.15555555555555556,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.35555555555555557
}
| 1.622222
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report\n Is Endosonography an effective method for the local staging of the ampullary carcinoma? : A Title:\nprospective study.\nAuthors:\nPanagiotis Skordilis ([email protected] )\nPhilippos Dimoulios ([email protected] )\nGeorgios Alexandrakis ([email protected] )\nJoanna Moschandrea ([email protected] )\nIoannis Mouzas ([email protected] )\nElias Kouroumalis ([email protected] )\n 1 29 Nov 2001 Version: Date:\n Dr Mohamad Eloubeidi Reviewer:\n A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:\n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded Advice on publication:\nto the compulsory revisions\nThis is a 7 year ? retrospective study that compared different staging modalities ( CT, US, EUS), for \nampullary cancer. EUS is certainly a novel and important technique to stage ampullary cancer. This experience supports the current literature and is of potential interest to the endosonography readership in particular and the GI community at large. However, significant details are lacking from the paper to \nmake it ready for publication \nMajor Comments \n1)It would be useful to provide a summary table of the 1997 TNM classification for ampullary cancer \nsince most physician ( even endosonographer) do not remember it and it will be helpful to the readership. 2) It is a little surprising that none of the tumors were classified as T1 and 17 patients had nodal \ninvolvement already. It seems that most patients had advanced disease, which does not support the \nbehavior of ampullary cancer. In addition, there is no report of under staging or over staging by EUS \nwhich is a common phenomenon. \n3) if the thrust of the paper is to show the superiority of EUS in detection and staging, the results should \nhighlight these aspects more. For example, when taking about sensitivity and specificity of EUS, it \nneeds to be compared in a table format to that of CT and US in comparison to surgery 4) Indirect sign of disease by US/CT is not defined and is important: it needs to be highlighted in the method section: is it the presence of dilated ducts with or without a mass? Is it lymphadenopathy? Is it a\nvague area in the ampulla or a prominent ampulla \n5) When describing node status what criteria did the authors use. Did they classify as present or absent \nand assumed if a lymph node is present then it is malignant. Did the authors use well established \ncriteria by Endosnography ( Catalano et al and Tio et al to determine and pre-operatively classify these \nlesions? \nSince ERCP and stent placement could have preceded EUS, inflammatory LN could have present due \nto inflammation. It is therefore important to use criteria for classification. \n6) Were all pancreatic ducts dilated by ERCP, since the authors reported that only 6/20 were dilated. \n7) Survival analysis: the p value is not reported. It is also helpful to give the Kaplan-Meyer survival curves if available. 8) the authors apparently reported on the role of ERCP in this patient population. They might need to \nhave a disclaimer in the method section \n9) No IRB approval was obtained. Do they have one at Crete Medical school? Where the patients informed about the study? 10) The authors report at the end of the results section that \" EUS was significantly better than both CT \nand US (11) \" We were unable to distinguish with accuracy between non-metastatic lymphadenopathy \nand distant metastasis\" is a very vague sentence. It is helpful again if the authors tell us how they \ndecided on malignant involvement of LNs. Despite its excellent T and N accuracy, EUS is unable to give\ninfo on distant metastasis. \n12) Figures need further labeling especially the EUS pictures. It is important to label the tumor, the \nmuscularis propria, evidence of invasion when appropriate. It is also useful to label LN. No all readers are familiar with EUS pictures \n13) Last page of discussion, the authors do not have enough data to support the use or lack of spiral CT\nin further staging. \" no further technique is required\". Again, while EUS is superior in T and N staging, it \ndoes not provide a complete survey of the liver and therefore CT is still useful in that regard. 14) Finally, the paper will benefit from an expert medical editor. \nMinor comments \n1) cover page: Medical school of Crete .... Needs to be changed to the usual format for institutions. \n2) Abstract: \n. Background: Needs to be re-written. \n. Conclusion: Needs to be more specific based on the results of the study \n3) Results: Fever is > 37.5 is not a universal criteria. \n4) Raised need to be changed to elevated 5) Page 10 of the discussion, \" the accuracy of EUS in predicting......to be 63 and 59%\" it is more appropriate to say that the results varied between 59 and 63%. The authors need to comment why they \nthink their results are different. Do they have more advanced tumors? \nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,002
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-4
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□Mini-laparoscopic□Versus□Laparoscopic□Approach□to□Appendectomy Title:
Authors:
Gamal□Mostafa□MD□( [email protected] )
Brent□D□Matthews□MD□( [email protected] )
Ronald□F□Sing□DO□( [email protected] )
Kent□W□Kercher□MD□( [email protected] )
Todd□Heniford□MD□( [email protected] )
□1□ □4□Oct□2001 Version: Date:
□Prof□Harry□Sax Reviewer:
□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest:
□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication:
This□is□a□good□report□that□realizes□its□own□shortcoming.□You□cant□randomize□two□techniques□based□on□
the□level□of□experience□of□the□surgeon.□The□interesting□paper□would□be□to□randomize□the□conventional□ approach,□which□I□assume□is□2□5mm□and□a□12mm□to□needleoscopic,□but□using□the□same□highly□trained□
surgeons.□
Did□all□the□other□surgeons□use□a□standardized□technique?□Were□discharges□delayed□due□to□timing□of□the□
case?□(Were□the□"experienced□surgeons"□on□weekends□and□nights?)□
How□were□op□times□defined?□Most□straightforward□lap□appys□take□25□min□skin□to□skin.□
How□durable□are□the□instruments?□This□could□be□a□cost□issue□down□the□road.□
A□good□paper□showing□it□can□be□done.
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□Mini-laparoscopic□Versus□Laparoscopic□Approach□to□Appendectomy Title:
Authors:
Gamal□Mostafa□MD□( [email protected] )
Brent□D□Matthews□MD□( [email protected] )
Ronald□F□Sing□DO□( [email protected] )
Kent□W□Kercher□MD□( [email protected] )
Todd□Heniford□MD□( [email protected] )
□1□ □4□Oct□2001 Version: Date:
□Prof□Harry□Sax Reviewer:
□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest:
□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication:
This□is□a□good□report□that□realizes□its□own□shortcoming.□You□cant□randomize□two□techniques□based□on□
the□level□of□experience□of□the□surgeon.□The□interesting□paper□would□be□to□randomize□the□conventional□ approach,□which□I□assume□is□2□5mm□and□a□12mm□to□needleoscopic,□but□using□the□same□highly□trained□
surgeons.□
Did□all□the□other□surgeons□use□a□standardized□technique?□Were□discharges□delayed□due□to□timing□of□the□
case?□(Were□the□"experienced□surgeons"□on□weekends□and□nights?)□
How□were□op□times□defined?□Most□straightforward□lap□appys□take□25□min□skin□to□skin.□
How□durable□are□the□instruments?□This□could□be□a□cost□issue□down□the□road.□
A□good□paper□showing□it□can□be□done.
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_4_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.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": 0,
"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
}
| 0.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□Mini-laparoscopic□Versus□Laparoscopic□Approach□to□Appendectomy Title: \nAuthors: \nGamal□Mostafa□MD□( [email protected] )\nBrent□D□Matthews□MD□( [email protected] )\nRonald□F□Sing□DO□( [email protected] )\nKent□W□Kercher□MD□( [email protected] )\nTodd□Heniford□MD□( [email protected] )\n□1□ □4□Oct□2001 Version: Date: \n□Prof□Harry□Sax Reviewer: \n□A□paper□whose□findings□are□important□to□those□with□closely□related□research□interests Level□of□interest: \n□Other□(see□below) Advice□on□publication: \nThis□is□a□good□report□that□realizes□its□own□shortcoming.□You□cant□randomize□two□techniques□based□on□ \nthe□level□of□experience□of□the□surgeon.□The□interesting□paper□would□be□to□randomize□the□conventional□ approach,□which□I□assume□is□2□5mm□and□a□12mm□to□needleoscopic,□but□using□the□same□highly□trained□ \nsurgeons.□ \nDid□all□the□other□surgeons□use□a□standardized□technique?□Were□discharges□delayed□due□to□timing□of□the□ \ncase?□(Were□the□\"experienced□surgeons\"□on□weekends□and□nights?)□ \nHow□were□op□times□defined?□Most□straightforward□lap□appys□take□25□min□skin□to□skin.□ \nHow□durable□are□the□instruments?□This□could□be□a□cost□issue□down□the□road.□ \nA□good□paper□showing□it□can□be□done. \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-4
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Mini-laparoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Approach to Appendectomy Title:
Authors:
Gamal Mostafa MD ([email protected] )
Brent D Matthews MD ([email protected] )
Ronald F Sing DO ([email protected] )
Kent W Kercher MD ([email protected] )
Todd Heniford MD ([email protected] )
1 5 Oct 2001 Version: Date:
Dr Keith Gersin Reviewer:
A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
Accept without revision Advice on publication:
My
criticism of this manuscript is the same as that which has been raised by the authors, namely are the statistical differences demonstrated in this
study due to the mini-laparoscopic techniques or are these differences due
to the expertise of those surgeons performing the mini-laparoscopic technique. Further investigation utilizing a prospective randomized approach, where one surgical team performs both the mini-laparoscopic and
the laparoscopic technique would be helpful in further clarifying the
statistical differences demonstrated between these two groups.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer's report
Mini-laparoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Approach to Appendectomy Title:
Authors:
Gamal Mostafa MD ([email protected] )
Brent D Matthews MD ([email protected] )
Ronald F Sing DO ([email protected] )
Kent W Kercher MD ([email protected] )
Todd Heniford MD ([email protected] )
1 5 Oct 2001 Version: Date:
Dr Keith Gersin Reviewer:
A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:
Accept without revision Advice on publication:
My
criticism of this manuscript is the same as that which has been raised by the authors, namely are the statistical differences demonstrated in this
study due to the mini-laparoscopic techniques or are these differences due
to the expertise of those surgeons performing the mini-laparoscopic technique. Further investigation utilizing a prospective randomized approach, where one surgical team performs both the mini-laparoscopic and
the laparoscopic technique would be helpful in further clarifying the
statistical differences demonstrated between these two groups.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_4_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 1,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 2,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.3333333333333333,
"praise": 0,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0.3333333333333333,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.6666666666666666
}
| 1.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report\n Mini-laparoscopic Versus Laparoscopic Approach to Appendectomy Title:\nAuthors:\nGamal Mostafa MD ([email protected] )\nBrent D Matthews MD ([email protected] )\nRonald F Sing DO ([email protected] )\nKent W Kercher MD ([email protected] )\nTodd Heniford MD ([email protected] )\n 1 5 Oct 2001 Version: Date:\n Dr Keith Gersin Reviewer:\n A paper whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest:\n Accept without revision Advice on publication:\nMy \ncriticism of this manuscript is the same as that which has been raised by the authors, namely are the statistical differences demonstrated in this \nstudy due to the mini-laparoscopic techniques or are these differences due \nto the expertise of those surgeons performing the mini-laparoscopic technique. Further investigation utilizing a prospective randomized approach, where one surgical team performs both the mini-laparoscopic and \nthe laparoscopic technique would be helpful in further clarifying the \nstatistical differences demonstrated between these two groups. \nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer’s report
□
open tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique Title:
Authors:
George H Sakorafas ([email protected] )
Ioannis Halikias ([email protected] )
Christos Nissotakis ([email protected] )
Nikolaos Kotsifopoulos ([email protected] )
Alexios Stavrou ([email protected] )
Constantinos Antonopoulos ([email protected] )
George A Kassaras ([email protected] )
130 Aug 2001 Version: Date:
Dr AS Poobalan Reviewer:
A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
Other (see below) Advice on publication:
1.There is no justification of the sample size used in your study. It is nessesary to generalise your
results to the whole population(major)
2. It is well presented paper but it does not present any intersting or new aspects about the procedure (major)
3. Spelling errors:In Operative technique section - para 3 ANTIBIOTICS and discussion section - para 1
WORLD(minor)
4.Reference 1 is not marked anywhere in the text (minor)
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer’s report
□
open tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique Title:
Authors:
George H Sakorafas ([email protected] )
Ioannis Halikias ([email protected] )
Christos Nissotakis ([email protected] )
Nikolaos Kotsifopoulos ([email protected] )
Alexios Stavrou ([email protected] )
Constantinos Antonopoulos ([email protected] )
George A Kassaras ([email protected] )
130 Aug 2001 Version: Date:
Dr AS Poobalan Reviewer:
A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
Other (see below) Advice on publication:
1.There is no justification of the sample size used in your study. It is nessesary to generalise your
results to the whole population(major)
2. It is well presented paper but it does not present any intersting or new aspects about the procedure (major)
3. Spelling errors:In Operative technique section - para 3 ANTIBIOTICS and discussion section - para 1
WORLD(minor)
4.Reference 1 is not marked anywhere in the text (minor)
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_3_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 3,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 3,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 2,
"results_and_discussion": 2,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 4
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.75,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0.75,
"praise": 0.25,
"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□\nopen tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique Title:\nAuthors:\nGeorge H Sakorafas ([email protected] )\nIoannis Halikias ([email protected] )\nChristos Nissotakis ([email protected] )\nNikolaos Kotsifopoulos ([email protected] )\nAlexios Stavrou ([email protected] )\nConstantinos Antonopoulos ([email protected] )\nGeorge A Kassaras ([email protected] )\n130 Aug 2001 Version: Date:\n Dr AS Poobalan Reviewer:\n A paper of limited interest Level of interest:\n Other (see below) Advice on publication:\n1.There is no justification of the sample size used in your study. It is nessesary to generalise your \nresults to the whole population(major) \n2. It is well presented paper but it does not present any intersting or new aspects about the procedure (major) \n3. Spelling errors:In Operative technique section - para 3 ANTIBIOTICS and discussion section - para 1 \nWORLD(minor) \n4.Reference 1 is not marked anywhere in the text (minor)\nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer’s report
□
open tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique Title:
Authors:
George H Sakorafas ([email protected] )
Ioannis Halikias ([email protected] )
Christos Nissotakis ([email protected] )
Nikolaos Kotsifopoulos ([email protected] )
Alexios Stavrou ([email protected] )
Constantinos Antonopoulos ([email protected] )
George A Kassaras ([email protected] )
11Sep 2001 Version: Date:
Dr J Metzger Reviewer:
A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:
OPEN TENSION FREE REPAIR OF INGUINAL HERNIAS; THE LICHTENSTEIN TECHNIQUE
G.H. Sakorafas et al.
Sakorafas et al. present a retrospective series of 540 tension-free hernia repairs (Lichtenstein
technique). They followed up 407 patients (80%; median follow-up 3.8 years) by clinical examination or
phone call and found a recurrence rate of 0.2%, two delayed rejection and postoperative neuralgia in
1%.
The originality of this work is very low. A multitude of randomised controlled trials have been reported in
the literature (1). I'am concerned in some details regarding operative technique and method of
follow-up.
First, operative technique: I believe it would be very important to indicate the optimal size of the mesh
which has been used for the repair. Lichtenstein and coworkers emphasised that it's very important to
use a mesh (8x16cm) large enough (2,3). Sakorafas describes a technique where he ligates the indirect
hernia sac whereas in the original Lichtenstein technique the authors emphasise only to free the sac
and to put it back without any ligation because this could cause a local inflammation and in
consequence more postoperative pain.
The authors do not provide any information concerning numbers of surgeons participating in this trial and their personal experience with the Lichtenstein technique.
Secondly, follow-up: The author do not give exact numbers or percentages of how many patients have
effectively been follow-up by a proper clinical examination. They summarise the follow-up numbers (80%) for clinical examinations and interviews by phone calls. I do really believe that the real number of local recurrences can only be evaluate by a clinical examination. Furthermore, the median follow-up of
3.8 years seems to be short for the assessment of the recurrence rate of any hernia repair technique.
Third, antibiotics and suction drainage: In this study antibiotics are usually given for 48-72 hours. I think
that’s an overtreatment. I agree that the general use of antibiotics remains controversial in this field. But,
asingle dose of antibiotics as prohylaxis is sufficient (4). Several studies showed that there is no need
or benefit for suction drainage in inguinal hernia repair (5-7).
Icongratulate for the extremely low numbers of patients with persistent postoperative pain (1%). Nation
wide studies revealed a percentage of 28% persistent pain after inguinal hernia repair in 1166 patients
with no differences regard to the different types of surgical hernia repairs (8). This number was
associated with functional impairment on more then half (> 14%) of those with pain. Therefore, I wonder
if there could be any connection with the quality of follow up in the present study.
Part discussion: The general conclusions from the literature concerning the Lichtenstein technique
sounds correct.
References
1. Collaboration EH. Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of open groin hernia repair: systematic
review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 2000; 87:854-859.
2. Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. The Lichtenstein open "tension-free" mesh repair of inguinal hernias. Rozhl
Chir 1995; 74:296-301.
3. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL. A critical evaluation of the Lichtenstein tension-free
hernioplasty. Int Surg 1994; 79:76-79.
4. Yerdel MA, Akin EB, Dolalan S, Turkcapar AG, Pehlivan M, Gecim IE, Kuterdem E. Effect of single-dose prophylactic ampicillin and sulbactam on wound infection after tension-free inguinal hernia repair with polypropylene mesh: the randomized, double-blind, prospective trial. Ann Surg 2001;
233:26-33.
5. Beacon J, Hoile RW, Ellis H. A trial of suction drainage in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 1980; 67:554-555. 6. Holmes J, Readman R. A study of wound infections following inguinal hernia repair. J Hosp Infect
1994; 28:153-156.
7. Peiper C, Conze J, Ponschek N, Schumpelick V. Value of subcutaneous drainage in repair of primary
inguinal hernia. A prospective randomized study of 100 cases. Chirurg 1997; 68:63-67.
8. Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal
herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 1, 1-7. 2001.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer’s report
□
open tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique Title:
Authors:
George H Sakorafas ([email protected] )
Ioannis Halikias ([email protected] )
Christos Nissotakis ([email protected] )
Nikolaos Kotsifopoulos ([email protected] )
Alexios Stavrou ([email protected] )
Constantinos Antonopoulos ([email protected] )
George A Kassaras ([email protected] )
11Sep 2001 Version: Date:
Dr J Metzger Reviewer:
A paper of limited interest Level of interest:
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:
OPEN TENSION FREE REPAIR OF INGUINAL HERNIAS; THE LICHTENSTEIN TECHNIQUE
G.H. Sakorafas et al.
Sakorafas et al. present a retrospective series of 540 tension-free hernia repairs (Lichtenstein
technique). They followed up 407 patients (80%; median follow-up 3.8 years) by clinical examination or
phone call and found a recurrence rate of 0.2%, two delayed rejection and postoperative neuralgia in
1%.
The originality of this work is very low. A multitude of randomised controlled trials have been reported in
the literature (1). I'am concerned in some details regarding operative technique and method of
follow-up.
First, operative technique: I believe it would be very important to indicate the optimal size of the mesh
which has been used for the repair. Lichtenstein and coworkers emphasised that it's very important to
use a mesh (8x16cm) large enough (2,3). Sakorafas describes a technique where he ligates the indirect
hernia sac whereas in the original Lichtenstein technique the authors emphasise only to free the sac
and to put it back without any ligation because this could cause a local inflammation and in
consequence more postoperative pain.
The authors do not provide any information concerning numbers of surgeons participating in this trial and their personal experience with the Lichtenstein technique.
Secondly, follow-up: The author do not give exact numbers or percentages of how many patients have
effectively been follow-up by a proper clinical examination. They summarise the follow-up numbers (80%) for clinical examinations and interviews by phone calls. I do really believe that the real number of local recurrences can only be evaluate by a clinical examination. Furthermore, the median follow-up of
3.8 years seems to be short for the assessment of the recurrence rate of any hernia repair technique.
Third, antibiotics and suction drainage: In this study antibiotics are usually given for 48-72 hours. I think
that’s an overtreatment. I agree that the general use of antibiotics remains controversial in this field. But,
asingle dose of antibiotics as prohylaxis is sufficient (4). Several studies showed that there is no need
or benefit for suction drainage in inguinal hernia repair (5-7).
Icongratulate for the extremely low numbers of patients with persistent postoperative pain (1%). Nation
wide studies revealed a percentage of 28% persistent pain after inguinal hernia repair in 1166 patients
with no differences regard to the different types of surgical hernia repairs (8). This number was
associated with functional impairment on more then half (> 14%) of those with pain. Therefore, I wonder
if there could be any connection with the quality of follow up in the present study.
Part discussion: The general conclusions from the literature concerning the Lichtenstein technique
sounds correct.
References
1. Collaboration EH. Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of open groin hernia repair: systematic
review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 2000; 87:854-859.
2. Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. The Lichtenstein open "tension-free" mesh repair of inguinal hernias. Rozhl
Chir 1995; 74:296-301.
3. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL. A critical evaluation of the Lichtenstein tension-free
hernioplasty. Int Surg 1994; 79:76-79.
4. Yerdel MA, Akin EB, Dolalan S, Turkcapar AG, Pehlivan M, Gecim IE, Kuterdem E. Effect of single-dose prophylactic ampicillin and sulbactam on wound infection after tension-free inguinal hernia repair with polypropylene mesh: the randomized, double-blind, prospective trial. Ann Surg 2001;
233:26-33.
5. Beacon J, Hoile RW, Ellis H. A trial of suction drainage in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 1980; 67:554-555. 6. Holmes J, Readman R. A study of wound infections following inguinal hernia repair. J Hosp Infect
1994; 28:153-156.
7. Peiper C, Conze J, Ponschek N, Schumpelick V. Value of subcutaneous drainage in repair of primary
inguinal hernia. A prospective randomized study of 100 cases. Chirurg 1997; 68:63-67.
8. Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal
herniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 1, 1-7. 2001.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_3_ReviewerReport_V1_R2.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 6,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 1,
"materials_and_methods": 18,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 3,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 1,
"total": 56
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.10714285714285714,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.017857142857142856,
"materials_and_methods": 0.32142857142857145,
"praise": 0.017857142857142856,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.05357142857142857,
"results_and_discussion": 0.017857142857142856,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.017857142857142856
}
| 0.553571
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer’s report\n□\nopen tension free repair of inguinal hernias; the Lichtenstein technique Title:\nAuthors:\nGeorge H Sakorafas ([email protected] )\nIoannis Halikias ([email protected] )\nChristos Nissotakis ([email protected] )\nNikolaos Kotsifopoulos ([email protected] )\nAlexios Stavrou ([email protected] )\nConstantinos Antonopoulos ([email protected] )\nGeorge A Kassaras ([email protected] )\n11Sep 2001 Version: Date:\n Dr J Metzger Reviewer:\n A paper of limited interest Level of interest:\n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:\nOPEN TENSION FREE REPAIR OF INGUINAL HERNIAS; THE LICHTENSTEIN TECHNIQUE \nG.H. Sakorafas et al. \nSakorafas et al. present a retrospective series of 540 tension-free hernia repairs (Lichtenstein \ntechnique). They followed up 407 patients (80%; median follow-up 3.8 years) by clinical examination or \nphone call and found a recurrence rate of 0.2%, two delayed rejection and postoperative neuralgia in \n1%. \nThe originality of this work is very low. A multitude of randomised controlled trials have been reported in \nthe literature (1). I'am concerned in some details regarding operative technique and method of \nfollow-up. \nFirst, operative technique: I believe it would be very important to indicate the optimal size of the mesh \nwhich has been used for the repair. Lichtenstein and coworkers emphasised that it's very important to \nuse a mesh (8x16cm) large enough (2,3). Sakorafas describes a technique where he ligates the indirect\nhernia sac whereas in the original Lichtenstein technique the authors emphasise only to free the sac \nand to put it back without any ligation because this could cause a local inflammation and in \nconsequence more postoperative pain. \nThe authors do not provide any information concerning numbers of surgeons participating in this trial and their personal experience with the Lichtenstein technique. \nSecondly, follow-up: The author do not give exact numbers or percentages of how many patients have \neffectively been follow-up by a proper clinical examination. They summarise the follow-up numbers (80%) for clinical examinations and interviews by phone calls. I do really believe that the real number of local recurrences can only be evaluate by a clinical examination. Furthermore, the median follow-up of \n3.8 years seems to be short for the assessment of the recurrence rate of any hernia repair technique. \nThird, antibiotics and suction drainage: In this study antibiotics are usually given for 48-72 hours. I think \nthat’s an overtreatment. I agree that the general use of antibiotics remains controversial in this field. But,\nasingle dose of antibiotics as prohylaxis is sufficient (4). Several studies showed that there is no need \nor benefit for suction drainage in inguinal hernia repair (5-7). \nIcongratulate for the extremely low numbers of patients with persistent postoperative pain (1%). Nation \nwide studies revealed a percentage of 28% persistent pain after inguinal hernia repair in 1166 patients \nwith no differences regard to the different types of surgical hernia repairs (8). This number was \nassociated with functional impairment on more then half (> 14%) of those with pain. Therefore, I wonder\nif there could be any connection with the quality of follow up in the present study. \nPart discussion: The general conclusions from the literature concerning the Lichtenstein technique \nsounds correct. \nReferences \n1. Collaboration EH. Mesh compared with non-mesh methods of open groin hernia repair: systematic \nreview of randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg 2000; 87:854-859. \n2. Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL. The Lichtenstein open \"tension-free\" mesh repair of inguinal hernias. Rozhl \nChir 1995; 74:296-301. \n3. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein IL. A critical evaluation of the Lichtenstein tension-free \nhernioplasty. Int Surg 1994; 79:76-79. \n4. Yerdel MA, Akin EB, Dolalan S, Turkcapar AG, Pehlivan M, Gecim IE, Kuterdem E. Effect of single-dose prophylactic ampicillin and sulbactam on wound infection after tension-free inguinal hernia repair with polypropylene mesh: the randomized, double-blind, prospective trial. Ann Surg 2001; \n233:26-33. \n5. Beacon J, Hoile RW, Ellis H. A trial of suction drainage in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 1980; 67:554-555. 6. Holmes J, Readman R. A study of wound infections following inguinal hernia repair. J Hosp Infect \n1994; 28:153-156. \n7. Peiper C, Conze J, Ponschek N, Schumpelick V. Value of subcutaneous drainage in repair of primary\ninguinal hernia. A prospective randomized study of 100 cases. Chirurg 1997; 68:63-67. \n8. Bay-Nielsen M, Perkins FM, Kehlet H. Pain and functional impairment 1 year after inguinal \nherniorrhaphy: a nationwide questionnaire study. Ann Surg 1, 1-7. 2001. \nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□open□tension□free□repair□of□inguinal□hernias;□the□Lichtenstein□technique Title:
Authors:
George□H□Sakorafas□( [email protected] )
Ioannis□Halikias□( [email protected] )
Christos□Nissotakis□( [email protected] )
Nikolaos□Kotsifopoulos□( [email protected] )
Alexios□Stavrou□( [email protected] )
Constantinos□Antonopoulos□( [email protected] )
George□A□Kassaras□( [email protected] )
□2□ □28□Sep□2001 Version: Date:
□Dr□AS□Poobalan Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□revision,□which□I□do□not□need□to□see Advice□on□publication:
I□am□reasonably□clear□about□the□purpose□of□the□study□now□that□you□have□clarified□that□bassini□operation□
is□still□performed□in□many□non-academic□centres□and□you□are□trying□to□emphasise□the□advantages□of□
lichtenstein□repair.□ I□am□aware□that□your□sample□size□is□quite□large(540)□but□I□think□that□you□should□have□atleast□a□sentence□ in□your□paper□about□the□justification□of□your□sample□size□to□be□confident□about□your□claim□of□the□
advantages□of□the□Lichtenstein□procedure□(minor)
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□open□tension□free□repair□of□inguinal□hernias;□the□Lichtenstein□technique Title:
Authors:
George□H□Sakorafas□( [email protected] )
Ioannis□Halikias□( [email protected] )
Christos□Nissotakis□( [email protected] )
Nikolaos□Kotsifopoulos□( [email protected] )
Alexios□Stavrou□( [email protected] )
Constantinos□Antonopoulos□( [email protected] )
George□A□Kassaras□( [email protected] )
□2□ □28□Sep□2001 Version: Date:
□Dr□AS□Poobalan Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□after□revision,□which□I□do□not□need□to□see Advice□on□publication:
I□am□reasonably□clear□about□the□purpose□of□the□study□now□that□you□have□clarified□that□bassini□operation□
is□still□performed□in□many□non-academic□centres□and□you□are□trying□to□emphasise□the□advantages□of□
lichtenstein□repair.□ I□am□aware□that□your□sample□size□is□quite□large(540)□but□I□think□that□you□should□have□atleast□a□sentence□ in□your□paper□about□the□justification□of□your□sample□size□to□be□confident□about□your□claim□of□the□
advantages□of□the□Lichtenstein□procedure□(minor)
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_3_ReviewerReport_V2_R1.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": 0,
"total": 1
}
|
{
"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": 0
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□open□tension□free□repair□of□inguinal□hernias;□the□Lichtenstein□technique Title: \nAuthors: \nGeorge□H□Sakorafas□( [email protected] )\nIoannis□Halikias□( [email protected] )\nChristos□Nissotakis□( [email protected] )\nNikolaos□Kotsifopoulos□( [email protected] )\nAlexios□Stavrou□( [email protected] )\nConstantinos□Antonopoulos□( [email protected] )\nGeorge□A□Kassaras□( [email protected] )\n□2□ □28□Sep□2001 Version: Date: \n□Dr□AS□Poobalan Reviewer: \n□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest: \n□Accept□after□revision,□which□I□do□not□need□to□see Advice□on□publication: \nI□am□reasonably□clear□about□the□purpose□of□the□study□now□that□you□have□clarified□that□bassini□operation□ \nis□still□performed□in□many□non-academic□centres□and□you□are□trying□to□emphasise□the□advantages□of□ \nlichtenstein□repair.□ I□am□aware□that□your□sample□size□is□quite□large(540)□but□I□think□that□you□should□have□atleast□a□sentence□ in□your□paper□about□the□justification□of□your□sample□size□to□be□confident□about□your□claim□of□the□ \nadvantages□of□the□Lichtenstein□procedure□(minor) \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-3
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's□report
□open□tension□free□repair□of□inguinal□hernias;□the□Lichtenstein□technique Title:
Authors:
George□H□Sakorafas□( [email protected] )
Ioannis□Halikias□( [email protected] )
Christos□Nissotakis□( [email protected] )
Nikolaos□Kotsifopoulos□( [email protected] )
Alexios□Stavrou□( [email protected] )
Constantinos□Antonopoulos□( [email protected] )
George□A□Kassaras□( [email protected] )
□2□ □28□Sep□2001 Version: Date:
□Dr□J□Metzger Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□without□revision Advice□on□publication:
The□authors□have□add□the□missing□data□regarding:□1)□how□many□surgeons□participated□2)□follow-up□
(phone□call□compared□with□clinical□examination)□3)□size□of□mesh□
I□still□do□not□agree□with□their□comments□concerning□use□of□antibiotics□for□48□to□72□hours□and□the□
indication□for□suction□drainage.□However,□the□revised□manuscript□can□be□published□-□my□concerns□about□
the□issues□above□may□be□add□for□discussion□
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
Reviewer's□report
□open□tension□free□repair□of□inguinal□hernias;□the□Lichtenstein□technique Title:
Authors:
George□H□Sakorafas□( [email protected] )
Ioannis□Halikias□( [email protected] )
Christos□Nissotakis□( [email protected] )
Nikolaos□Kotsifopoulos□( [email protected] )
Alexios□Stavrou□( [email protected] )
Constantinos□Antonopoulos□( [email protected] )
George□A□Kassaras□( [email protected] )
□2□ □28□Sep□2001 Version: Date:
□Dr□J□Metzger Reviewer:
□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest:
□Accept□without□revision Advice□on□publication:
The□authors□have□add□the□missing□data□regarding:□1)□how□many□surgeons□participated□2)□follow-up□
(phone□call□compared□with□clinical□examination)□3)□size□of□mesh□
I□still□do□not□agree□with□their□comments□concerning□use□of□antibiotics□for□48□to□72□hours□and□the□
indication□for□suction□drainage.□However,□the□revised□manuscript□can□be□published□-□my□concerns□about□
the□issues□above□may□be□add□for□discussion□
Competing□interests:
None□declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_3_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": 0,
"total": 1
}
|
{
"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": 0
}
| 1
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's□report \n□open□tension□free□repair□of□inguinal□hernias;□the□Lichtenstein□technique Title: \nAuthors: \nGeorge□H□Sakorafas□( [email protected] )\nIoannis□Halikias□( [email protected] )\nChristos□Nissotakis□( [email protected] )\nNikolaos□Kotsifopoulos□( [email protected] )\nAlexios□Stavrou□( [email protected] )\nConstantinos□Antonopoulos□( [email protected] )\nGeorge□A□Kassaras□( [email protected] )\n□2□ □28□Sep□2001 Version: Date: \n□Dr□J□Metzger Reviewer: \n□A□paper□of□limited□interest Level□of□interest: \n□Accept□without□revision Advice□on□publication: \nThe□authors□have□add□the□missing□data□regarding:□1)□how□many□surgeons□participated□2)□follow-up□ \n(phone□call□compared□with□clinical□examination)□3)□size□of□mesh□ \nI□still□do□not□agree□with□their□comments□concerning□use□of□antibiotics□for□48□to□72□hours□and□the□ \nindication□for□suction□drainage.□However,□the□revised□manuscript□can□be□published□-□my□concerns□about□ \nthe□issues□above□may□be□add□for□discussion□ \nCompeting□interests: \nNone□declared. ",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic and open surgery for pheochromocytoma Title:
Authors:
Bjorn Edwin ([email protected] )
Airazat M. Kazaryan ([email protected] )
Tom Mala ([email protected] )
Per F Pfeffer ([email protected] )
Tor I Tonnessen ([email protected] )
Erik Fosse ([email protected] )
1 12 Jun 2001 Version: Date:
Dr H Neumann Reviewer:
A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:
Laparoscopic surgery for pheochromocytoma is one of the major progresses in clinical medicine of the
last decade. Since the first report of Gagner and colleagues in 1992, however still the number of
publications is limited. Experiences from national and international meetings demonstrate that pro's and
con's are still under debate, especially access, blood pressure controll, duration of operation, tumor size, costs, hospital stay and side effects.
Dr. Edwin and colleagues from Oslo contribute with an elegant study on 7 patients operated within 3
years and compare this series with a historieal series of 9 subjects operated in 6 years at the same institution. Main results include no longer operation time, no conversion to open surgery, no problems
with blood pressure controll, reduced need of analgetics postoperatively and shorter hospital stay.
Laparoscopically has been successfully operated even a tumor of 11 cm diameter.
This study adds another hospital to teams in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany, Italy and France
where laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery has been performed in an increasing number of cities
per state. Although experience of the team is important, this study shows again how ligh the benefit for
the patients is and that laparoscopic surgery is the methode of choice.
Inbetween modifications of laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery have been developed on the
background of moleculargenetic diagnostic means. About 20% of pheochromocytoma are manifestation
of inherited diseases likewise multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, Von Hippel-Lindau disease and the
pheochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome. Carriers can be identified by mutations in the RET gene,
VHL gene, and SDHD gene (Eng, Neumann, Gimm, Astuti). Pheochromocytomas are frequently
involving both adrenal glands (Neumann NEJM). In order to avoid life-long steroid dependency after
bilateral adrenalectomy, we developed the concept of adrenal sparing surgery (Brit J Surg) and combined it with the laparoscopic technique (Janetschek). This could be shown to be successful from
the endocrinological viewpoint (Neumann JCEM 1999). Other groups have subsequently confirmed that
laparoscopic adrenal sparing surgery is currently the methode of choice for hereditary
pheochromocytoma (Walz, Walther). Since many patients who are carriers of predisposing germeline
mutations initially present with only one pheochromocytoma a general recommandation of adrenal
sparing surgery should be considered. Although both (open and laparoscopic) groups of the report of
Dr. Edwin and colleagues do not include multifocal pheochromocytoma, young age (as 24 y) and extraadrenal location (in 2 cases) should initiate genetic analyses of these patients. The ultimate aim should be preoprative moleculargenetic evaluation of pheochromocytoma patients in order to provide
with optimal informations for planning laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery including adrenal
sparing modification.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic and open surgery for pheochromocytoma Title:
Authors:
Bjorn Edwin ([email protected] )
Airazat M. Kazaryan ([email protected] )
Tom Mala ([email protected] )
Per F Pfeffer ([email protected] )
Tor I Tonnessen ([email protected] )
Erik Fosse ([email protected] )
1 12 Jun 2001 Version: Date:
Dr H Neumann Reviewer:
A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:
Laparoscopic surgery for pheochromocytoma is one of the major progresses in clinical medicine of the
last decade. Since the first report of Gagner and colleagues in 1992, however still the number of
publications is limited. Experiences from national and international meetings demonstrate that pro's and
con's are still under debate, especially access, blood pressure controll, duration of operation, tumor size, costs, hospital stay and side effects.
Dr. Edwin and colleagues from Oslo contribute with an elegant study on 7 patients operated within 3
years and compare this series with a historieal series of 9 subjects operated in 6 years at the same institution. Main results include no longer operation time, no conversion to open surgery, no problems
with blood pressure controll, reduced need of analgetics postoperatively and shorter hospital stay.
Laparoscopically has been successfully operated even a tumor of 11 cm diameter.
This study adds another hospital to teams in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany, Italy and France
where laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery has been performed in an increasing number of cities
per state. Although experience of the team is important, this study shows again how ligh the benefit for
the patients is and that laparoscopic surgery is the methode of choice.
Inbetween modifications of laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery have been developed on the
background of moleculargenetic diagnostic means. About 20% of pheochromocytoma are manifestation
of inherited diseases likewise multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, Von Hippel-Lindau disease and the
pheochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome. Carriers can be identified by mutations in the RET gene,
VHL gene, and SDHD gene (Eng, Neumann, Gimm, Astuti). Pheochromocytomas are frequently
involving both adrenal glands (Neumann NEJM). In order to avoid life-long steroid dependency after
bilateral adrenalectomy, we developed the concept of adrenal sparing surgery (Brit J Surg) and combined it with the laparoscopic technique (Janetschek). This could be shown to be successful from
the endocrinological viewpoint (Neumann JCEM 1999). Other groups have subsequently confirmed that
laparoscopic adrenal sparing surgery is currently the methode of choice for hereditary
pheochromocytoma (Walz, Walther). Since many patients who are carriers of predisposing germeline
mutations initially present with only one pheochromocytoma a general recommandation of adrenal
sparing surgery should be considered. Although both (open and laparoscopic) groups of the report of
Dr. Edwin and colleagues do not include multifocal pheochromocytoma, young age (as 24 y) and extraadrenal location (in 2 cases) should initiate genetic analyses of these patients. The ultimate aim should be preoprative moleculargenetic evaluation of pheochromocytoma patients in order to provide
with optimal informations for planning laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery including adrenal
sparing modification.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_2_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 1,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 2,
"materials_and_methods": 11,
"praise": 2,
"presentation_and_reporting": 1,
"results_and_discussion": 1,
"suggestion_and_solution": 3,
"total": 19
}
|
{
"criticism": 0.05263157894736842,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0.10526315789473684,
"materials_and_methods": 0.5789473684210527,
"praise": 0.10526315789473684,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0.05263157894736842,
"results_and_discussion": 0.05263157894736842,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0.15789473684210525
}
| 1.105263
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report\n Laparoscopic and open surgery for pheochromocytoma Title:\nAuthors:\nBjorn Edwin ([email protected] )\nAirazat M. Kazaryan ([email protected] )\nTom Mala ([email protected] )\nPer F Pfeffer ([email protected] )\nTor I Tonnessen ([email protected] )\nErik Fosse ([email protected] )\n 1 12 Jun 2001 Version: Date:\n Dr H Neumann Reviewer:\n A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:\n Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until I see revised version Advice on publication:\nLaparoscopic surgery for pheochromocytoma is one of the major progresses in clinical medicine of the \nlast decade. Since the first report of Gagner and colleagues in 1992, however still the number of \npublications is limited. Experiences from national and international meetings demonstrate that pro's and\ncon's are still under debate, especially access, blood pressure controll, duration of operation, tumor size, costs, hospital stay and side effects. \nDr. Edwin and colleagues from Oslo contribute with an elegant study on 7 patients operated within 3 \nyears and compare this series with a historieal series of 9 subjects operated in 6 years at the same institution. Main results include no longer operation time, no conversion to open surgery, no problems \nwith blood pressure controll, reduced need of analgetics postoperatively and shorter hospital stay. \nLaparoscopically has been successfully operated even a tumor of 11 cm diameter. \nThis study adds another hospital to teams in Canada, the US, Austria, Germany, Italy and France \nwhere laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery has been performed in an increasing number of cities \nper state. Although experience of the team is important, this study shows again how ligh the benefit for \nthe patients is and that laparoscopic surgery is the methode of choice. \nInbetween modifications of laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery have been developed on the \nbackground of moleculargenetic diagnostic means. About 20% of pheochromocytoma are manifestation\nof inherited diseases likewise multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, Von Hippel-Lindau disease and the \npheochromocytoma-paraganglioma syndrome. Carriers can be identified by mutations in the RET gene,\nVHL gene, and SDHD gene (Eng, Neumann, Gimm, Astuti). Pheochromocytomas are frequently \ninvolving both adrenal glands (Neumann NEJM). In order to avoid life-long steroid dependency after \nbilateral adrenalectomy, we developed the concept of adrenal sparing surgery (Brit J Surg) and combined it with the laparoscopic technique (Janetschek). This could be shown to be successful from \nthe endocrinological viewpoint (Neumann JCEM 1999). Other groups have subsequently confirmed that \nlaparoscopic adrenal sparing surgery is currently the methode of choice for hereditary \npheochromocytoma (Walz, Walther). Since many patients who are carriers of predisposing germeline \nmutations initially present with only one pheochromocytoma a general recommandation of adrenal \nsparing surgery should be considered. Although both (open and laparoscopic) groups of the report of \nDr. Edwin and colleagues do not include multifocal pheochromocytoma, young age (as 24 y) and extraadrenal location (in 2 cases) should initiate genetic analyses of these patients. The ultimate aim should be preoprative moleculargenetic evaluation of pheochromocytoma patients in order to provide \nwith optimal informations for planning laparoscopic pheochromocytoma surgery including adrenal \nsparing modification. \nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
||
0
| 0
|
Review for 10.1186/1471-2482-1-2
|
Reviewed - bmc_surgery
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic and open surgery for pheochromocytoma Title:
Authors:
Bjorn Edwin ([email protected] )
Airazat M. Kazaryan ([email protected] )
Tom Mala ([email protected] )
Per F. Pfeffer ([email protected] )
Tor I. Tonnessen ([email protected] )
Erik Fosse ([email protected] )
3 2 Aug 2001 Version: Date:
Dr H Neumann Reviewer:
A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
Other (see below) Advice on publication:
I read the letter of the authors and the changes they have done.
From my viewpoint all is sufficiently revised now.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
Reviewer's report
Laparoscopic and open surgery for pheochromocytoma Title:
Authors:
Bjorn Edwin ([email protected] )
Airazat M. Kazaryan ([email protected] )
Tom Mala ([email protected] )
Per F. Pfeffer ([email protected] )
Tor I. Tonnessen ([email protected] )
Erik Fosse ([email protected] )
3 2 Aug 2001 Version: Date:
Dr H Neumann Reviewer:
A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:
Other (see below) Advice on publication:
I read the letter of the authors and the changes they have done.
From my viewpoint all is sufficiently revised now.
Competing interests:
None declared.
|
BMC
|
12893_2001_2_ReviewerReport_V3_R1.pdf
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 1,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0,
"total": 3
}
|
{
"criticism": 0,
"example": 0,
"importance_and_relevance": 0,
"materials_and_methods": 0,
"praise": 0.3333333333333333,
"presentation_and_reporting": 0,
"results_and_discussion": 0,
"suggestion_and_solution": 0
}
| 0.333333
| 0
|
[
{
"content": "Please review this paper.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Reviewer's report\n Laparoscopic and open surgery for pheochromocytoma Title:\nAuthors:\nBjorn Edwin ([email protected] )\nAirazat M. Kazaryan ([email protected] )\nTom Mala ([email protected] )\nPer F. Pfeffer ([email protected] )\nTor I. Tonnessen ([email protected] )\nErik Fosse ([email protected] )\n 3 2 Aug 2001 Version: Date:\n Dr H Neumann Reviewer:\n A paper of considerable general medical or scientific interest Level of interest:\n Other (see below) Advice on publication:\nI read the letter of the authors and the changes they have done. \nFrom my viewpoint all is sufficiently revised now.\nCompeting interests:\nNone declared.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 2,001
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.