Reviewer's report
Title:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: Jan Gunnar JH Hatlebakk
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Page 12: The follow-up is hardly "complete", as discussed by the authors later.
Only in-patient hospital diagnoses are included, the way I read the text. Were
diagnoses from outpatient clinics included? To what extent could IHD be treated
by private specialists?
Figure 1 is illogical, since the authors argue that chest and epigastric pain can
not be meaningfully discerned. In this figure the two pain locations are separated,
given specific diagnoses, and then again lumped together. Should be omitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None.
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: Jan Gunnar JH Hatlebakk
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Page 12: The follow-up is hardly "complete", as discussed by the authors later.
Only in-patient hospital diagnoses are included, the way I read the text. Were
diagnoses from outpatient clinics included? To what extent could IHD be treated
by private specialists?
Figure 1 is illogical, since the authors argue that chest and epigastric pain can
not be meaningfully discerned. In this figure the two pain locations are separated,
given specific diagnoses, and then again lumped together. Should be omitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None.
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:20 November 2007
Reviewer: Jan Gunnar JH Hatlebakk
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
None.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
Page 12: The follow-up is hardly "complete", as discussed by the authors later.
Only in-patient hospital diagnoses are included, the way I read the text. Were
diagnoses from outpatient clinics included? To what extent could IHD be treated
by private specialists?
Figure 1 is illogical, since the authors argue that chest and epigastric pain can
not be meaningfully discerned. In this figure the two pain locations are separated,
given specific diagnoses, and then again lumped together. Should be omitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
None.
What next?: Accept after discretionary revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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