Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Eyal Sheiner
Reviewer's report:
This study was aimed to explore the association between celiac disease and
menstrual cycle, gestation and puerperal disorders.
1.I strongly advise the authors to consult an epidemiologist. Since celiac here
was the exposure and not the outcome, this is a cohort study and not a clear
case-control (such as studies investigating risk factors for preterm labor for
example).
2.Also, there are mistakes in the results: for example the OR for amenorrhea is
NOT 33, and the 95% CI is NOT 7.17-151.8, but rather the OR is 10.9; 95% CI
3.1-42.2, P<0.001!!!!!
3.I recommend consulting with Obstetricians, since the lower weight at birth is
actually birthweight etc.
4.The tables should be revised: Table 2: why do we need the "no" line? Just put
the complications (amenorrhea etc). Every reader can than calculate the "no" if
he wishes to do so…
5.Is 49 years old or even 45 years old part of the "childbearing ages"???
6.No need to repeat the results of the tables in the results section.
7.The first sentence of the abstract should be deleted.
8.Use actual p values and not bigger than 0.05. P=0.06 and P=0.999 are both
bigger than 0.05 but give different illustration of the results.
9.English needs revision by a native speaker.
10.Several studies exist regarding this issue, which surprisingly were not
included in the discussion and introduction of this study. The study of Sheiner et
al (Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Nov;129(1):41-5. ) found higher rates
of IUGR, and in a subsequent article (Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009
Jan;279(1):1-3.) whether screening for celiac is necessary. Nevertheless, these
studies were not even mentioned by the authors.
11.Discussion is too long and unfocused.
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Eyal Sheiner
Reviewer's report:
This study was aimed to explore the association between celiac disease and
menstrual cycle, gestation and puerperal disorders.
1.I strongly advise the authors to consult an epidemiologist. Since celiac here
was the exposure and not the outcome, this is a cohort study and not a clear
case-control (such as studies investigating risk factors for preterm labor for
example).
2.Also, there are mistakes in the results: for example the OR for amenorrhea is
NOT 33, and the 95% CI is NOT 7.17-151.8, but rather the OR is 10.9; 95% CI
3.1-42.2, P<0.001!!!!!
3.I recommend consulting with Obstetricians, since the lower weight at birth is
actually birthweight etc.
4.The tables should be revised: Table 2: why do we need the "no" line? Just put
the complications (amenorrhea etc). Every reader can than calculate the "no" if
he wishes to do so…
5.Is 49 years old or even 45 years old part of the "childbearing ages"???
6.No need to repeat the results of the tables in the results section.
7.The first sentence of the abstract should be deleted.
8.Use actual p values and not bigger than 0.05. P=0.06 and P=0.999 are both
bigger than 0.05 but give different illustration of the results.
9.English needs revision by a native speaker.
10.Several studies exist regarding this issue, which surprisingly were not
included in the discussion and introduction of this study. The study of Sheiner et
al (Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Nov;129(1):41-5. ) found higher rates
of IUGR, and in a subsequent article (Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009
Jan;279(1):1-3.) whether screening for celiac is necessary. Nevertheless, these
studies were not even mentioned by the authors.
11.Discussion is too long and unfocused.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive life disorders in Italian celiac women. A case-control study.
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Eyal Sheiner
Reviewer's report:
This study was aimed to explore the association between celiac disease and
menstrual cycle, gestation and puerperal disorders.
1.I strongly advise the authors to consult an epidemiologist. Since celiac here
was the exposure and not the outcome, this is a cohort study and not a clear
case-control (such as studies investigating risk factors for preterm labor for
example).
2.Also, there are mistakes in the results: for example the OR for amenorrhea is
NOT 33, and the 95% CI is NOT 7.17-151.8, but rather the OR is 10.9; 95% CI
3.1-42.2, P<0.001!!!!!
3.I recommend consulting with Obstetricians, since the lower weight at birth is
actually birthweight etc.
4.The tables should be revised: Table 2: why do we need the "no" line? Just put
the complications (amenorrhea etc). Every reader can than calculate the "no" if
he wishes to do so…
5.Is 49 years old or even 45 years old part of the "childbearing ages"???
6.No need to repeat the results of the tables in the results section.
7.The first sentence of the abstract should be deleted.
8.Use actual p values and not bigger than 0.05. P=0.06 and P=0.999 are both
bigger than 0.05 but give different illustration of the results.
9.English needs revision by a native speaker.
10.Several studies exist regarding this issue, which surprisingly were not
included in the discussion and introduction of this study. The study of Sheiner et
al (Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Nov;129(1):41-5. ) found higher rates
of IUGR, and in a subsequent article (Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009
Jan;279(1):1-3.) whether screening for celiac is necessary. Nevertheless, these
studies were not even mentioned by the authors.
11.Discussion is too long and unfocused.
assistant