Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
We kindly thank Larghi et al and Tiwari et al for their interest in our study.1–3 We acknowledge the limitations of our study. However, we would like to make some additional remarks.
We agree with the authors that our approach inherits the risk of selection bias, given the non-randomised comparative design and baseline differences between groups. Being aware of this, we corrected for baseline imbalances between groups for the primary endpoint with logistic regression analysis. We also acknowledge that we did not account for interhospital variation. However, the multicentre study protocol, including the criteria and techniques of the interventions, such as the use of a nasocystic catheter, was similar to the approach that the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group has applied for almost two decades in previous randomised trials.4–6 We therefore, feel that patients were treated in a similar way without relevant variation in patient …
Collaborators Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group.
Contributors LB, RCV and RPV wrote the response to the letter to the editor. The guarantor of the article is RPV.
Funding This study was funded by Boston Scientific Corporation (grand number: ISREND00028) and Amsterdam UMC (grand number: not applicable).
Competing interests RPV received a research grant and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific and research support from Zambon.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.