Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1078-x (2019)

Reviewer’s report
Title:  Minimally Invasive Drainage versus Open Surgical Debridement in SAP/SMAP –  A network 
meta-analysis
Version: 1 Date: 05 Aug 2019
Reviewer: Praveen Kumar
Reviewer's report:
Congrats for the authors for extensively revising the manuscript and making changes as per comments. 
I would like a couple of things to be addressed.
First, have a thorough read of the manuscript and improvement in minor grammatical errors (still  
present in paper) needs to be done. These errors hamper the continuity and would be best if it can be  
corrected. 
The author is saying that "Second, we did a random-effects network meta-analysis  and the I2 metric  
was also used to assume a common heterogeneity variable for all comparisons. "
The author should be aware that in network metaanlysis we also assess the inconsistency. Inconsistency  
is the assessment of result of indirect analysis with that of direct analysis. This is more important than  
even  heterogeneity  for  network  metaanalysis.  I2  is  also  not  a  good  metric  for  assessment  of  
heterogenity. The better metric would be metaregression (possible covariate shown to affect the result).  
I would suggest the authors to add both of these to their paper. 
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 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, please 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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality 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 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 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 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