Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01343-7 (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Open necrosectomy combined with continuous positive drai nage and prophylactic 
diverting loop ileostomy for late infected pancreatic necrosis: a retrospective cohort study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2019  
 
Reviewer: Mateusz Jagielski  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
In paper entaitled "Open necrosectomy combined with continuous positive drainage and 
prophylactic diverting loop ileostomy for late infected pancreatic necrosis: a retrospective cohort 
study" authors  evaluated an innovative open necrosectomy strategy with continuous positive 
drainage and prophylactic diverting loop i leostomy for the management of late infected 
pancreatic necrosis.  
 
 
Design of this study and statistical analysis are acceptable.  
Importance of awarded results and substantive value of this article are very good.  
The conclusions have large practical valu es and affect the state of current knowledge.  
 
In my opinion, the substantive value of the article does  allow publication on the pages of BMC 
Gastroenterology with major revision.  
 
The article  meet the criteria for publication on the pages of BMC Gastroe nterology with major 
revision.  
 
Please give me the detailed scheme of step -up approach  procedure in your medical center.  
 
Does minimally invasive techniques of treatment of IPN definition covers only percutaneous 
drainage, or more (for example endosopic d rainage)? Please explain this subject.  
 
How would you define insufficiency of minimally invasive techniques of treatment of IPN?  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in y our 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy 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 in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 th e 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 y ou 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.  
 
None conflict of interest . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the web site 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal