Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:8 June 2010
Reviewer: Mark Pimentel
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript entitled, "Moderat performance of serum S100A12, in
distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome", the
authors attempt to validate the utility of a serum measurement of S100A12 in
separating IBS from IBD in a substantial cohort of subjects. The data are
interesting although the manuscript needs some changes.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
In the methods section of the manuscript, the first paragraph, normal format is to
include average age and other demographics in the results section. What could
be explained in more detail in the methods is how the patients were found. Were
these consecutive patients. Was this through advertising? Were the IBS patrients
from a primary care or tertiary care setting? How many IBS were C-IBS vs
D-IBS?
In the results ist is important to separate IBS into D-IBS for the sake of
comparison of S100A12 levels. I assume you just used D-IBS since these would
be the type of IBS patients that would need to be discriminated from IBD as CD
and UC have diarrhea. However, this is not clear from the paper.
You mention CDAI and CAI but do not report in the results. Was there a
difference in these scores as they correlate to the S100A12?
The results need some work as regards to format. There is too much information
in the results that are just re-emphasizing the tables. If the data is in the table,
you can be more brief. Also do you think a multivariate analysis is better to look
at all these comparisons?
While I think the test has a statistically significant difference from IBS, some
subgroups may not be as clear. For example, colonic CD fell in the range of IBS
in the table. So, I guess it is confusing as to how you subgroup your analysis.
Perhaps the number of subjects is too small to even do these comparisons and
reserve this type of analysis for later study with large number of subjects.
I think the conclusions could be toned down a little. Clearly stool testing of
S100A12 is superior in terms of testing dynamics. Where do you see a role for
this modest sensitivity and sensitivity of serum testing? Is it just for convenience?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:8 June 2010
Reviewer: Mark Pimentel
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript entitled, "Moderat performance of serum S100A12, in
distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome", the
authors attempt to validate the utility of a serum measurement of S100A12 in
separating IBS from IBD in a substantial cohort of subjects. The data are
interesting although the manuscript needs some changes.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
In the methods section of the manuscript, the first paragraph, normal format is to
include average age and other demographics in the results section. What could
be explained in more detail in the methods is how the patients were found. Were
these consecutive patients. Was this through advertising? Were the IBS patrients
from a primary care or tertiary care setting? How many IBS were C-IBS vs
D-IBS?
In the results ist is important to separate IBS into D-IBS for the sake of
comparison of S100A12 levels. I assume you just used D-IBS since these would
be the type of IBS patients that would need to be discriminated from IBD as CD
and UC have diarrhea. However, this is not clear from the paper.
You mention CDAI and CAI but do not report in the results. Was there a
difference in these scores as they correlate to the S100A12?
The results need some work as regards to format. There is too much information
in the results that are just re-emphasizing the tables. If the data is in the table,
you can be more brief. Also do you think a multivariate analysis is better to look
at all these comparisons?
While I think the test has a statistically significant difference from IBS, some
subgroups may not be as clear. For example, colonic CD fell in the range of IBS
in the table. So, I guess it is confusing as to how you subgroup your analysis.
Perhaps the number of subjects is too small to even do these comparisons and
reserve this type of analysis for later study with large number of subjects.
I think the conclusions could be toned down a little. Clearly stool testing of
S100A12 is superior in terms of testing dynamics. Where do you see a role for
this modest sensitivity and sensitivity of serum testing? Is it just for convenience?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Moderate performance of serum S100A12, in distinguishing inflammatory
bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:8 June 2010
Reviewer: Mark Pimentel
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript entitled, "Moderat performance of serum S100A12, in
distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome", the
authors attempt to validate the utility of a serum measurement of S100A12 in
separating IBS from IBD in a substantial cohort of subjects. The data are
interesting although the manuscript needs some changes.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
In the methods section of the manuscript, the first paragraph, normal format is to
include average age and other demographics in the results section. What could
be explained in more detail in the methods is how the patients were found. Were
these consecutive patients. Was this through advertising? Were the IBS patrients
from a primary care or tertiary care setting? How many IBS were C-IBS vs
D-IBS?
In the results ist is important to separate IBS into D-IBS for the sake of
comparison of S100A12 levels. I assume you just used D-IBS since these would
be the type of IBS patients that would need to be discriminated from IBD as CD
and UC have diarrhea. However, this is not clear from the paper.
You mention CDAI and CAI but do not report in the results. Was there a
difference in these scores as they correlate to the S100A12?
The results need some work as regards to format. There is too much information
in the results that are just re-emphasizing the tables. If the data is in the table,
you can be more brief. Also do you think a multivariate analysis is better to look
at all these comparisons?
While I think the test has a statistically significant difference from IBS, some
subgroups may not be as clear. For example, colonic CD fell in the range of IBS
in the table. So, I guess it is confusing as to how you subgroup your analysis.
Perhaps the number of subjects is too small to even do these comparisons and
reserve this type of analysis for later study with large number of subjects.
I think the conclusions could be toned down a little. Clearly stool testing of
S100A12 is superior in terms of testing dynamics. Where do you see a role for
this modest sensitivity and sensitivity of serum testing? Is it just for convenience?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
assistant