Reviewer's report
Title:Limited utilization of serologic testing in patients undergoing duodenal
biopsy for celiac disease
Version: 3Date:11 September 2013
Reviewer: Raffaella Nenna
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. As Authors affirmed: “ the proportion of biopsies from bulb vs. other duodenal
locations cannot be accurately determined”. This could lead to missed diagnosis.
This implies a limitation of the study that should be reported in the conclusions.
2. Introduction: page 3, lines 11-20. The three types of testing are neither
“SEQUENTIAL” steps, nor “options”. I believe that “tools” is a valid term.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Limited utilization of serologic testing in patients undergoing duodenal
biopsy for celiac disease
Version: 3Date:11 September 2013
Reviewer: Raffaella Nenna
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. As Authors affirmed: “ the proportion of biopsies from bulb vs. other duodenal
locations cannot be accurately determined”. This could lead to missed diagnosis.
This implies a limitation of the study that should be reported in the conclusions.
2. Introduction: page 3, lines 11-20. The three types of testing are neither
“SEQUENTIAL” steps, nor “options”. I believe that “tools” is a valid term.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Limited utilization of serologic testing in patients undergoing duodenal
biopsy for celiac disease
Version: 3Date:11 September 2013
Reviewer: Raffaella Nenna
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. As Authors affirmed: “ the proportion of biopsies from bulb vs. other duodenal
locations cannot be accurately determined”. This could lead to missed diagnosis.
This implies a limitation of the study that should be reported in the conclusions.
2. Introduction: page 3, lines 11-20. The three types of testing are neither
“SEQUENTIAL” steps, nor “options”. I believe that “tools” is a valid term.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant