- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 on “The risk of malignancy in ultrasound detected gallbladder polyps: A systematic review”
International Journal of Surgery 25 (2016) 399
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 on “The risk of malignancy in ultrasound detected gallbladder polyps: A systematic review” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor revision. 1.2. Comments to the author This is an important topic of practical significance. Good methodology. Limitations of the study, particularly due to very inhomogeneous available papers, stressed, but need more prominence as the evidence from the reviewed papers is contradictory in some aspects. Points to address/improve: - Reference the list of proven and potential risk factors in ‘Risk factors’ paragraph - Address the known increased frequency of GBPs in ethnicities other than Indian e.g. Chilean - Rethink the advice in Fig. 2 on following up 6-monthly for at least two years in view of review finding that growth occurs in minority of polyps, is slow and does not always signify malignancy (e.g. Refs. 28, 40 and 56 quoted in ‘Growth of GBPs on US’
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.098 1743-9191
paragraph)- frequency of 6 months might be too frequent, two years period might be too short, but there needs to be an end point to follow up of ‘at least’ two years to avoid indefinite following up stable polyps (so maybe follow up at 1 year and if no growth, at 5 years, then stop) - Table 2 states incorrectly that Kratzer study had 0 cholecystectomies (it had 3), and text states (‘Indications for cholecystectomy’) that Moriguchi study (Ref. 22) had no cholecystectomies (it had 4, correctly stated in Table 2) - Fig 2 - why is rescan within 2 weeks to confirm considered necessary? Attention to spelling and grammar throughout also needed e.g abstract: key words ‘polyploid’, ‘sixty four patients of … polyps were reported’. J. Webb United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected]. Available online 2 December 2016
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 on “The risk of malignancy in ultrasound detected gallbladder polyps: A systematic review” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor revision. 1.2. Comments to the author This is an important topic of practical significance. Good methodology. Limitations of the study, particularly due to very inhomogeneous available papers, stressed, but need more prominence as the evidence from the reviewed papers is contradictory in some aspects. Points to address/improve: - Reference the list of proven and potential risk factors in ‘Risk factors’ paragraph - Address the known increased frequency of GBPs in ethnicities other than Indian e.g. Chilean - Rethink the advice in Fig. 2 on following up 6-monthly for at least two years in view of review finding that growth occurs in minority of polyps, is slow and does not always signify malignancy (e.g. Refs. 28, 40 and 56 quoted in ‘Growth of GBPs on US’
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.098 1743-9191
paragraph)- frequency of 6 months might be too frequent, two years period might be too short, but there needs to be an end point to follow up of ‘at least’ two years to avoid indefinite following up stable polyps (so maybe follow up at 1 year and if no growth, at 5 years, then stop) - Table 2 states incorrectly that Kratzer study had 0 cholecystectomies (it had 3), and text states (‘Indications for cholecystectomy’) that Moriguchi study (Ref. 22) had no cholecystectomies (it had 4, correctly stated in Table 2) - Fig 2 - why is rescan within 2 weeks to confirm considered necessary? Attention to spelling and grammar throughout also needed e.g abstract: key words ‘polyploid’, ‘sixty four patients of … polyps were reported’. J. Webb United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected]. Available online 2 December 2016