Reviewer's report
Title:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 2Date:3 November 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
MS: MS: 6650244742771751
Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical evidence from
histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Nuno Lunet, Bárbara Peleteiro, Carla Carrilho, Céu Figueiredo and Ana Azevedo
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes. The aim of this study was to provide empirical evidence of how spectrum
effects can affect the sensitivity of histological assessment of H.pylori infection
which may contribute to explain the heterogeneity in prevalence estimates across
populations with similar prevalence.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
In reviewing the revised manuscript, please consider whether the authors have
answered your points sufficiently well to allow their manuscript to be published.
Yes.
What next?
----------
- Accept after discretionary revisions (which the authors can choose to ignore)
The authors also need to describe the prevalence of H. pylori in the two
populations under consideration, preferably in the background section.
Portuguese patients comprised of all white and 96.2% males while Mozambican
population comprised of 93.1% blacks with 34.3% male patients. The two
population were tested at different periods in time i.e., Portuguese population in
1998 and Mozambican population in 2005-2006. They need to elaborate whether
the difference in the histological diagnosis of H. pylori infection could be
explained by the ethnicity and gender effect.
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:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 2Date:3 November 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
MS: MS: 6650244742771751
Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical evidence from
histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Nuno Lunet, Bárbara Peleteiro, Carla Carrilho, Céu Figueiredo and Ana Azevedo
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes. The aim of this study was to provide empirical evidence of how spectrum
effects can affect the sensitivity of histological assessment of H.pylori infection
which may contribute to explain the heterogeneity in prevalence estimates across
populations with similar prevalence.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
In reviewing the revised manuscript, please consider whether the authors have
answered your points sufficiently well to allow their manuscript to be published.
Yes.
What next?
----------
- Accept after discretionary revisions (which the authors can choose to ignore)
The authors also need to describe the prevalence of H. pylori in the two
populations under consideration, preferably in the background section.
Portuguese patients comprised of all white and 96.2% males while Mozambican
population comprised of 93.1% blacks with 34.3% male patients. The two
population were tested at different periods in time i.e., Portuguese population in
1998 and Mozambican population in 2005-2006. They need to elaborate whether
the difference in the histological diagnosis of H. pylori infection could be
explained by the ethnicity and gender effect.
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:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 2Date:3 November 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
MS: MS: 6650244742771751
Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical evidence from
histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Nuno Lunet, Bárbara Peleteiro, Carla Carrilho, Céu Figueiredo and Ana Azevedo
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes. The aim of this study was to provide empirical evidence of how spectrum
effects can affect the sensitivity of histological assessment of H.pylori infection
which may contribute to explain the heterogeneity in prevalence estimates across
populations with similar prevalence.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Yes.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Yes
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
In reviewing the revised manuscript, please consider whether the authors have
answered your points sufficiently well to allow their manuscript to be published.
Yes.
What next?
----------
- Accept after discretionary revisions (which the authors can choose to ignore)
The authors also need to describe the prevalence of H. pylori in the two
populations under consideration, preferably in the background section.
Portuguese patients comprised of all white and 96.2% males while Mozambican
population comprised of 93.1% blacks with 34.3% male patients. The two
population were tested at different periods in time i.e., Portuguese population in
1998 and Mozambican population in 2005-2006. They need to elaborate whether
the difference in the histological diagnosis of H. pylori infection could be
explained by the ethnicity and gender effect.
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