Reply to "methodological and interpretative challenges in evaluating EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy for benign gastric outlet obstruction".

Dig Liver Dis

Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Services, IRCCS - ISMETT, Palermo, Italy.

Published: September 2025


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2025.06.018DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reply "methodological
4
"methodological interpretative
4
interpretative challenges
4
challenges evaluating
4
evaluating eus-guided
4
eus-guided gastrojejunostomy
4
gastrojejunostomy benign
4
benign gastric
4
gastric outlet
4
outlet obstruction"
4

Similar Publications

We respond to Gillon's critique of our data-driven analysis of the history of (), in which we used a topic model to trace intellectual trends in the journal's first 50 years. Gillon, drawing on his personal memories as 's second (and longest serving) editor, challenges several of our findings, particularly those concerning the prominence and classification of topics such as In this reply, we clarify misunderstandings that led to part of his criticisms of our method. At the same time, we also briefly discuss some nuances of topic modelling, in particular, its reliance on simplified representations of text, sensitivity to modeling choices and topic interpretations.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Reply: "Improving the Study of Impulse Control Disorders in CSAI-Treated Parkinson's Disease: Methodological and Interdisciplinary Directions".

Mov Disord Clin Pract

September 2025

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Neurosciences, Toulouse Parkinson Expert Centre, Toulouse NeuroToul Center of Excellence in Neurodegeneration (COEN), French NS-Park/F-CRIN Network, University of Toulouse 3, CHU of Toulouse, INSERM, Toulouse, France.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) synthesize and evaluate data, mainly from randomized trials, which then guides the development of clinical recommendations in evidence-based medicine. However, the data and methodological information in the included papers can often be lacking or unclear, and reviewers usually need to contact the authors of included studies for clarifications. Contacting authors is recommended, but it is unclear how often SR teams do it, or what the level of response is.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF