Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0595-8 (2017)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: ANGIOTENSIN II RECEPTOR BLOCKERS AND RISK OF ACUTE PANCREATITIS  
- A POPULATION BASED CASE -CONTROL STUDY IN SWEDEN  
 
Vers ion: 0 Date: 16 Sep 2016  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hsin Chu  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 In this observation study, ARB was confined in patient of age (40 -84yrs) and hypertensi ve 
disease. Do you suppose that ARB can widely use or apply in other patient group?  
 Does the ARB exist differences in dose, duration and drug characteristics in user? Have All 
of them  been analysed?  
 Globally, the severity of pancreatitis was classifi ed by either Ranson's criteria, 
Atlanta(revised,2012), BISAP, or APARCHI score. The length of hospital stay, usually, was 
not a documented indicator of severity. What is your explanation?  
 Does the level of aldosterone have been checked in patients of ARB 's group with acute 
pancreatitis?  
If yes, are there exist any difference or comparison in degree of severity and non -user? (Ref.  
Chappel et al J.pancreas 2001;2:33 -39   Tsang et al Regul Pep 2003;111:47 -53    Kuno et al 
Gastroenterology 2003;124:1010 -1019 ) 
 Why the risk was significantly reduced in all severities of acute pancreatitis among users in 
either current or past use ARB? Does the ARB have a long -term protective effects?  
What is the putative mechanism and hypothesis of ARB reducing the risk/sev erity in acute 
pancreatitis?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is re quired in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
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, plea se explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics 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  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing inte rests, 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 publication 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 co mpeting 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 p osted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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