Reviewer's report
Title:beta-hCG changes during spontaneous resolution in tubal ectopic
pregnancies
Version:1Date:21 February 2015
Reviewer: Nadia Jahangiri
Reviewer's report:
Dear Sir/Madam
Manuscript entitled “#-hCG changes during spontaneous resolution in tubal
ectopic pregnancies” has been reviewed and following are my comments:
Title:
The title is not compatible with study’s design. The authors have not evaluated
#-hCG changes, they have defined the length of time required for # -hCG to drop
below 5 iu/L.
Abstract:
1- IU/L should be inserted instead of iu/L in the abstract and all other parts of the
text.
2- The conclusion in the abstract should be written according to the conclusion
section of the article.
Introduction:
1- Line # 65: references should be cited for the sentence “Previous studies have
focused on assessment of # -hCG clearance curves in women following
treatment with methotrexate or after salpingotomy”
2- Line # 69: A reference should be cited for the sentence “A novel medical
management strategy with the chemotherapeutic agent gefitinib has been
recently proposed with the main aim of shortening the # -hCG clearance time.”
Materials & methods:
1- I think this study is a retrospective longitudinal study, not retrospective cohort
study.
2- There is no definition for the variable “# -hCG trend” in method section.
Results:
Some parts of result section are unclear and the text needs to be polished.
1. In Statistical analysis it is mentioned that authors used linear regression to
assess predictive variables’ independence. It should be reported clearly.
2. Line # 168: It is mentioned “The linear regression model retained both #
-hCGmax and # -hCGtrend as independent predictors of the length of follow up.”
The variables which have been included in the model should be reported. It is not
clear.
3. There is no information about the patient’s gestational age.
4. Line# 143: The authors says “The final study group included 158 out 226
women”. What happened for the rest of the samples (n=68). Reasons for
non-participants should be included.
5. Use of flow diagram should be considered.
6. There is no data about variable “#-hCG tres” in results, which has been
defined in method section.
7. It is better to include the overall success rate and complication rate of
expectant management.
8. The label of table 1 is not compatible with the table itself. It should be
improved
9. Vertical lines should not be used to separate columns in table 1.
Discussion:
1. In line # 175, it is mentioned “the median interval for b-hCG to return to
pre-pregnancy levels is 20 days” while in abstract it is mentioned “18.0 days”
2. Line # 211: A reference should be cited for the sentence” because the
measured diameter reflect varying degrees of oedema and hematosalpinx and so
do not correlate closely with the amount of active trophoblastic tissue”
3. Line # 202: by must be inserted instead of hy
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests