Next Article in Journal
Development and Validation of an Insulin Resistance Predicting Model Using a Machine-Learning Approach in a Population-Based Cohort in Korea
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Optimal Timing of Endoscopic Ultrasound Performance Post-Acute Idiopathic Pancreatitis
Previous Article in Journal
Isolated Splenic Metastasis of Primary Lung Cancer Presented as Metachronous Oligometastatic Disease—A Case Report
Previous Article in Special Issue
Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Infection Rate after Endoscopic Ultrasound Through-the-Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Cysts: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Diagnostics 2022, 12(1), 211; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010211
by Antonio Facciorusso 1,2, Martha Arevalo-Mora 3, Maria Cristina Conti Bellocchi 2, Laura Bernardoni 2, Daryl Ramai 4, Paraskevas Gkolfakis 5, Domenico Loizzi 6, Nicola Muscatiello 1, Antonio Ambrosi 7, Nicola Tartaglia 7, Carlos Robles-Medranda 3, Elisa Stasi 8, Andrew Ofosu 9 and Stefano Francesco Crinò 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Diagnostics 2022, 12(1), 211; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010211
Submission received: 29 December 2021 / Revised: 14 January 2022 / Accepted: 14 January 2022 / Published: 16 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Tissue Sampling of Tumors)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor,

I like the conceptual setting of the present study, even if it is a retrospective study. The authors acknowledged its limitations, but their research is helping in the quest of proving that unnecessary antibiotic therapy has to be limited nowadays, because of its adverse effects.

I see the version of the manuscript was already corrected (probably as a response to a previous review), and I can observe that the style of the writing is clear and academic.

I recommend this paper for publishing. 

Best regards,

Vasile Negrean

Associate Professor, MD, PhD

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the paper in accordance with the reviewers’ comments.  The reviewer believes that this paper will provide useful information.

On line 218, "Other outcomes" is strange. The authors should revise this subtitle.

Author Response

Thank you. The subtitle has been changed in “Secondary Outcomes”

Back to TopTop