Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy
and non invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C
Version: 1Date:23 January 2011
Reviewer: Sheng-Nan Lu
Reviewer's report:
General comment:
The manuscript by Boursier et al. compared the accuracies of FibroMeter,
Fibrotest and FibroScan in assessing fibrotic stage with a reference of Metavir
fibrosis stage in 4 independent populations of HCV infection. They also assessed
the accuracies of fibrotic stage by local pathologist and expert pathologist with a
reference of consensus reading by 2 expert pathologists. In the result, they
showed us FibroMeter is superior and equal to local pathologist in clinical
practice and expert pathologist in detailed fibrosis classification. In addition,
compared with Fibrotest and FibroScan, FibroMeter had the best accuracy in
assessing binary or detailed fibrosis classification in terms of lower discrepancy
score and grade. The conclusion was sound from their results. However,
prospective validation is necessary to confirm the conclusion.
Major comments:
1. Considering the differences between 6 to 8 stages in detailed fibrosis
classification and 5 histological fibrosis stages, how the authors to define the
accuracy in blood test comparing to pathological stage? For example, is that
correct classification for FibroMeter if the FibroMeter stage is 1.5 (1/2) and
Metavir stage 1 ?
2. There is a modification of detailed fibrosis classification for FibroMeter 3G from
FibroMeter2G. What are the rationales and methods in that modification?
3. FibroMeter 3G is significantly better in correct classification for detailed
classification than for binary classification, which was not seen in other
assessments. The authors might explain it in the discussion section.
Minor comment:
1. There is no description of figure 2 in the result section.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy
and non invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C
Version: 1Date:23 January 2011
Reviewer: Sheng-Nan Lu
Reviewer's report:
General comment:
The manuscript by Boursier et al. compared the accuracies of FibroMeter,
Fibrotest and FibroScan in assessing fibrotic stage with a reference of Metavir
fibrosis stage in 4 independent populations of HCV infection. They also assessed
the accuracies of fibrotic stage by local pathologist and expert pathologist with a
reference of consensus reading by 2 expert pathologists. In the result, they
showed us FibroMeter is superior and equal to local pathologist in clinical
practice and expert pathologist in detailed fibrosis classification. In addition,
compared with Fibrotest and FibroScan, FibroMeter had the best accuracy in
assessing binary or detailed fibrosis classification in terms of lower discrepancy
score and grade. The conclusion was sound from their results. However,
prospective validation is necessary to confirm the conclusion.
Major comments:
1. Considering the differences between 6 to 8 stages in detailed fibrosis
classification and 5 histological fibrosis stages, how the authors to define the
accuracy in blood test comparing to pathological stage? For example, is that
correct classification for FibroMeter if the FibroMeter stage is 1.5 (1/2) and
Metavir stage 1 ?
2. There is a modification of detailed fibrosis classification for FibroMeter 3G from
FibroMeter2G. What are the rationales and methods in that modification?
3. FibroMeter 3G is significantly better in correct classification for detailed
classification than for binary classification, which was not seen in other
assessments. The authors might explain it in the discussion section.
Minor comment:
1. There is no description of figure 2 in the result section.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy
and non invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C
Version: 1Date:23 January 2011
Reviewer: Sheng-Nan Lu
Reviewer's report:
General comment:
The manuscript by Boursier et al. compared the accuracies of FibroMeter,
Fibrotest and FibroScan in assessing fibrotic stage with a reference of Metavir
fibrosis stage in 4 independent populations of HCV infection. They also assessed
the accuracies of fibrotic stage by local pathologist and expert pathologist with a
reference of consensus reading by 2 expert pathologists. In the result, they
showed us FibroMeter is superior and equal to local pathologist in clinical
practice and expert pathologist in detailed fibrosis classification. In addition,
compared with Fibrotest and FibroScan, FibroMeter had the best accuracy in
assessing binary or detailed fibrosis classification in terms of lower discrepancy
score and grade. The conclusion was sound from their results. However,
prospective validation is necessary to confirm the conclusion.
Major comments:
1. Considering the differences between 6 to 8 stages in detailed fibrosis
classification and 5 histological fibrosis stages, how the authors to define the
accuracy in blood test comparing to pathological stage? For example, is that
correct classification for FibroMeter if the FibroMeter stage is 1.5 (1/2) and
Metavir stage 1 ?
2. There is a modification of detailed fibrosis classification for FibroMeter 3G from
FibroMeter2G. What are the rationales and methods in that modification?
3. FibroMeter 3G is significantly better in correct classification for detailed
classification than for binary classification, which was not seen in other
assessments. The authors might explain it in the discussion section.
Minor comment:
1. There is no description of figure 2 in the result section.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant