Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  6 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 michael F vaezi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Well conducted and presented study of important clinical significance in a relatively uncommon 
disorder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors should comment on the limitation of multiple comparison and how this might effect p 
value (significance) in their study. The study had adequate power to compare about 10-11 variables 
based on their sample size. They should comment on how many different comparisons were made 
in total and if more than 10-11 then should adjust their p value representing significance. 
Additionally, the authors should comment on if the continued chest pain symptoms may have been 
related to less than adequate objective esophageal emptying (i.e. how was treatment effectiveness 
judged? was it based on symptoms alone or barium emptying on esophagram?) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest 
Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  6 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 michael F vaezi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Well conducted and presented study of important clinical significance in a relatively uncommon 
disorder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors should comment on the limitation of multiple comparison and how this might effect p 
value (significance) in their study. The study had adequate power to compare about 10-11 variables 
based on their sample size. They should comment on how many different comparisons were made 
in total and if more than 10-11 then should adjust their p value representing significance. 
Additionally, the authors should comment on if the continued chest pain symptoms may have been 
related to less than adequate objective esophageal emptying (i.e. how was treatment effectiveness 
judged? was it based on symptoms alone or barium emptying on esophagram?) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  6 December 2005 Version: Date: 
 michael F vaezi Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Well conducted and presented study of important clinical significance in a relatively uncommon 
disorder ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
The authors should comment on the limitation of multiple comparison and how this might effect p 
value (significance) in their study. The study had adequate power to compare about 10-11 variables 
based on their sample size. They should comment on how many different comparisons were made 
in total and if more than 10-11 then should adjust their p value representing significance. 
Additionally, the authors should comment on if the continued chest pain symptoms may have been 
related to less than adequate objective esophageal emptying (i.e. how was treatment effectiveness 
judged? was it based on symptoms alone or barium emptying on esophagram?) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest 
assistant