Reviewer's report
Title:Risk factors of rotavirus diarrhea in hospitalized children in sanglah
hospital, denpasar: a cohort retrospective study
Version:1Date:5 February 2014
Reviewer: David Sahli
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
There is really no question or hypothesis since the study is descriptive in nature.
But the title of the paper corresponds to the study design as well as to the
content. However the study compares two groups, those admitted with rotavirus
infection and those admitted without rotavirus infection, based on the inclusion
criteria. I would question the validity of comparing these groups and then stating
assumptions regarding risk factors for a rotavirus infection in general. Also we do
not know the diversity that may adhere to the “non rota” group, as this group
aren’t characterised sufficiently.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) I would question the reasons for excluding patients with diarrhea >7 days.
Diarrhea in rotavirus infection often last quite long partly due to a decreased
function of the epithelial lining in the microvilli. Is there any data confirming that
the excluded individuals did not have rotavirus associated gastroenteritis?
3. Are the data sound?
I cannot vouch for data accuracy but the variables are clearly defined, and data
collection seems robust.
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 to some extent
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The authors draw general conclusions on rotavirus infection in children based
on the findings made in a highly selected group, i.e hospitalised children.
Although this is to some extent handled in the discussion it should be clearly
stated in the conclusion.
2) The group defined as non-rotavirus diarrhea needs to be better characterised,
especially since comparisons between these groups are made.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) No, very little on this subject is mentioned.
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both published and unpublished?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?
No, the writing is subpar at best. There are numerous spelling errors as well as
incomplete/erroneous sentences.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Risk factors of rotavirus diarrhea in hospitalized children in sanglah
hospital, denpasar: a cohort retrospective study
Version:1Date:5 February 2014
Reviewer: David Sahli
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
There is really no question or hypothesis since the study is descriptive in nature.
But the title of the paper corresponds to the study design as well as to the
content. However the study compares two groups, those admitted with rotavirus
infection and those admitted without rotavirus infection, based on the inclusion
criteria. I would question the validity of comparing these groups and then stating
assumptions regarding risk factors for a rotavirus infection in general. Also we do
not know the diversity that may adhere to the “non rota” group, as this group
aren’t characterised sufficiently.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) I would question the reasons for excluding patients with diarrhea >7 days.
Diarrhea in rotavirus infection often last quite long partly due to a decreased
function of the epithelial lining in the microvilli. Is there any data confirming that
the excluded individuals did not have rotavirus associated gastroenteritis?
3. Are the data sound?
I cannot vouch for data accuracy but the variables are clearly defined, and data
collection seems robust.
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 to some extent
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The authors draw general conclusions on rotavirus infection in children based
on the findings made in a highly selected group, i.e hospitalised children.
Although this is to some extent handled in the discussion it should be clearly
stated in the conclusion.
2) The group defined as non-rotavirus diarrhea needs to be better characterised,
especially since comparisons between these groups are made.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) No, very little on this subject is mentioned.
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?
No, the writing is subpar at best. There are numerous spelling errors as well as
incomplete/erroneous sentences.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Risk factors of rotavirus diarrhea in hospitalized children in sanglah
hospital, denpasar: a cohort retrospective study
Version:1Date:5 February 2014
Reviewer: David Sahli
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
There is really no question or hypothesis since the study is descriptive in nature.
But the title of the paper corresponds to the study design as well as to the
content. However the study compares two groups, those admitted with rotavirus
infection and those admitted without rotavirus infection, based on the inclusion
criteria. I would question the validity of comparing these groups and then stating
assumptions regarding risk factors for a rotavirus infection in general. Also we do
not know the diversity that may adhere to the “non rota” group, as this group
aren’t characterised sufficiently.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) I would question the reasons for excluding patients with diarrhea >7 days.
Diarrhea in rotavirus infection often last quite long partly due to a decreased
function of the epithelial lining in the microvilli. Is there any data confirming that
the excluded individuals did not have rotavirus associated gastroenteritis?
3. Are the data sound?
I cannot vouch for data accuracy but the variables are clearly defined, and data
collection seems robust.
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 to some extent
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1) The authors draw general conclusions on rotavirus infection in children based
on the findings made in a highly selected group, i.e hospitalised children.
Although this is to some extent handled in the discussion it should be clearly
stated in the conclusion.
2) The group defined as non-rotavirus diarrhea needs to be better characterised,
especially since comparisons between these groups are made.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Discretionary Revisions:
1) No, very little on this subject is mentioned.
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?
No, the writing is subpar at best. There are numerous spelling errors as well as
incomplete/erroneous sentences.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant