Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 3Date:11 October 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The following comments have still not been addressed:
1) are the participants and nonparticipants different?
2) sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false. This sentence is still there. The authors should either
delete it or reconsider that the similar participation rates does not assure
validity.
3) why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
Authors wrote - Thank for your suggestion. We have ever considered the
condition of nonrandom error. But our physician (GI man), technician and
laboratory all the same. Having the same team does not assure there are no
sources of nonrandom error. Authors should consider this more.
4) - should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking.
Authors wrote - We have adjusted betel quid and cigarette smoking effects.
Not clear where.
5) There are still a lot of grammatical errors.
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 3Date:11 October 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The following comments have still not been addressed:
1) are the participants and nonparticipants different?
2) sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false. This sentence is still there. The authors should either
delete it or reconsider that the similar participation rates does not assure
validity.
3) why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
Authors wrote - Thank for your suggestion. We have ever considered the
condition of nonrandom error. But our physician (GI man), technician and
laboratory all the same. Having the same team does not assure there are no
sources of nonrandom error. Authors should consider this more.
4) - should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking.
Authors wrote - We have adjusted betel quid and cigarette smoking effects.
Not clear where.
5) There are still a lot of grammatical errors.
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 3Date:11 October 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The following comments have still not been addressed:
1) are the participants and nonparticipants different?
2) sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false. This sentence is still there. The authors should either
delete it or reconsider that the similar participation rates does not assure
validity.
3) why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
Authors wrote - Thank for your suggestion. We have ever considered the
condition of nonrandom error. But our physician (GI man), technician and
laboratory all the same. Having the same team does not assure there are no
sources of nonrandom error. Authors should consider this more.
4) - should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking.
Authors wrote - We have adjusted betel quid and cigarette smoking effects.
Not clear where.
5) There are still a lot of grammatical errors.
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant