Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of a probiotic 'functional food' in the management of irritable
bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:18 January 2013
Reviewer: Yuri Saito
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The abstract should mention that this study was limited to patients with IBS-C
and IBS-M.
2. Discussion. I do think the high response rate among the control group (53% at
4 weeks, 68% at 8 weeks) bears further discussion. Did you look to see if there
was a differential response between the IBS-C and IBS-M patients? Or perhaps
response was determined by symptom severity?
3. Table 2. “Male” reads like a “Mean (sd)”. Does 15 refer to actual number (n) or
percent (%)?
4. Table 3. If true, I would advise making it clear in the heading that this is based
on ITT analysis.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Participation bias. With low initial participation rates and high drop out, I would
recommend including some information on those who chose not to participate
and those who dropped out.
2. Exclusion criteria. The paper states “General practitioners applied discretion to
prevent contact with patients considered inappropriate for contact or inclusion.”
–Could you provide specific examples? For example, mental health conditions,
etc.
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 have no conflicts of interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of a probiotic 'functional food' in the management of irritable
bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:18 January 2013
Reviewer: Yuri Saito
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The abstract should mention that this study was limited to patients with IBS-C
and IBS-M.
2. Discussion. I do think the high response rate among the control group (53% at
4 weeks, 68% at 8 weeks) bears further discussion. Did you look to see if there
was a differential response between the IBS-C and IBS-M patients? Or perhaps
response was determined by symptom severity?
3. Table 2. “Male” reads like a “Mean (sd)”. Does 15 refer to actual number (n) or
percent (%)?
4. Table 3. If true, I would advise making it clear in the heading that this is based
on ITT analysis.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Participation bias. With low initial participation rates and high drop out, I would
recommend including some information on those who chose not to participate
and those who dropped out.
2. Exclusion criteria. The paper states “General practitioners applied discretion to
prevent contact with patients considered inappropriate for contact or inclusion.”
–Could you provide specific examples? For example, mental health conditions,
etc.
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 have no conflicts of interest.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of a probiotic 'functional food' in the management of irritable
bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial
Version: 1Date:18 January 2013
Reviewer: Yuri Saito
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions:
None.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. The abstract should mention that this study was limited to patients with IBS-C
and IBS-M.
2. Discussion. I do think the high response rate among the control group (53% at
4 weeks, 68% at 8 weeks) bears further discussion. Did you look to see if there
was a differential response between the IBS-C and IBS-M patients? Or perhaps
response was determined by symptom severity?
3. Table 2. “Male” reads like a “Mean (sd)”. Does 15 refer to actual number (n) or
percent (%)?
4. Table 3. If true, I would advise making it clear in the heading that this is based
on ITT analysis.
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Participation bias. With low initial participation rates and high drop out, I would
recommend including some information on those who chose not to participate
and those who dropped out.
2. Exclusion criteria. The paper states “General practitioners applied discretion to
prevent contact with patients considered inappropriate for contact or inclusion.”
–Could you provide specific examples? For example, mental health conditions,
etc.
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 have no conflicts of interest.
assistant