Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0510-8 (2016)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Gastropericardial fistula: getting to the heart of the matter  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: Brendon Stiles  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a well summarized review of a patient with gastropericardial fistula secondary to gastric 
adenocarcinoma within a hiatal hernia.  This is an unusual problem d eserving of description.  I 
have just a few comments.  
 
 
 
- In our experience complex pericardial effusions (rather than simple) in patients with 
previous gastric or esophageal surgery are highly suggestive.  In this case was that 
distinction able to be made?  
 
 
- The authors interchangeably use survival and mortality in the text and in Table 2. I 
believe the outcome in Table 2 should be "survival" rather than "mortality".  
 
 
- I would put numbers of patients in Table 1 beside the perce ntages to give readers a sense 
of the overall scope of the review.  
 
 
- In Table 2, I would also suggest adding numbers of patients.  I would drop the last two 
rows as "non -survivors" with and without  operative intervention seems redundant to the 
previous rows.   
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary con trols?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statisti cs in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Qualit y of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publ ication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Cr eative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal