Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 1Date:13 February 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the prevalence of H. pylori in polyps that have been
removed during lower GI endoscopy. The manuscript is dealing with a very
interesting topic, since the definite role of H. pylori infection in the development of
lower GI malignancies is still under discussion. Data from serological studies is
pointing towards an indirect influence, whereas data demonstrating a direct
presence of H. pylori in the neoplastic tissue is poor. The approach of
immunohistochemical staining of the bacteria is helpful to assess a systematic
risk profile.
There are some points concerning the design of the study and presentation of
the data that should be considered before publishing this article.
- In the conclusion it says â##existing data is not adequate to substantiate an
associationâ## and â##large number of patients are neededâ##. If the data is
not sufficient, why is it presented here? Why are not more patients included to
reach a study population for a proper statistical analysis? There is no clear
message that should be delivered by this article.
- The abstract is extremely detailed (esp. the results part). It should be focused
on the major points.
- Materials and Methods:
o Why is the sigmoid and the rectum excluded? The study protocol is not
mentioned appropriately (especially inclusion and exclusion criteria are missing).
o The protocol for IHC should be presented either in more detail, or references
should be cited for the complete protocol.
- Results:
o It is quite difficult to understand the staining patterns in the way they are
presented.
o The staining patterns stratified by the different types of polyps are presented
twice: in the text and by the table 1. The detailed description in the text is not
necessary.
o Table 1 is confusing. H. pylori presence should be presented above the
staining patterns. Then, absolute numbers of H. pylori positive polyps could be
left out since it is represented twice in the table.
- Discussion:
o In the first part, the structure is confusing. For the reader, there is no clear
message.
o The passage concerning the â##gastrin-linkâ## between gastral H.
pylori-infection and its effects on the regulation of GI-hormones and growth
factors should be shortened. Most of the presented studies are not relevant for
the data that is substance of the article (â##neoplasms of the colonâ##, not of
the stomach).
o Several times â##reportsâ## are mentioned without citing a reference.
o A better differentiation between studies evaluating H. pylori-presence by
serology and those with direct proof of the bacteria in colonic neoplastic tissue
would be helpful.
o The discussion of the presented results is scattered in between the lines. A
clear critical interpretation of the data is missing.
We suggest to accept this article for publishing, if the points above are properly
revised, especially the discussion need to be better structured.
Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 1Date:13 February 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the prevalence of H. pylori in polyps that have been
removed during lower GI endoscopy. The manuscript is dealing with a very
interesting topic, since the definite role of H. pylori infection in the development of
lower GI malignancies is still under discussion. Data from serological studies is
pointing towards an indirect influence, whereas data demonstrating a direct
presence of H. pylori in the neoplastic tissue is poor. The approach of
immunohistochemical staining of the bacteria is helpful to assess a systematic
risk profile.
There are some points concerning the design of the study and presentation of
the data that should be considered before publishing this article.
- In the conclusion it says â##existing data is not adequate to substantiate an
associationâ## and â##large number of patients are neededâ##. If the data is
not sufficient, why is it presented here? Why are not more patients included to
reach a study population for a proper statistical analysis? There is no clear
message that should be delivered by this article.
- The abstract is extremely detailed (esp. the results part). It should be focused
on the major points.
- Materials and Methods:
o Why is the sigmoid and the rectum excluded? The study protocol is not
mentioned appropriately (especially inclusion and exclusion criteria are missing).
o The protocol for IHC should be presented either in more detail, or references
should be cited for the complete protocol.
- Results:
o It is quite difficult to understand the staining patterns in the way they are
presented.
o The staining patterns stratified by the different types of polyps are presented
twice: in the text and by the table 1. The detailed description in the text is not
necessary.
o Table 1 is confusing. H. pylori presence should be presented above the
staining patterns. Then, absolute numbers of H. pylori positive polyps could be
left out since it is represented twice in the table.
- Discussion:
o In the first part, the structure is confusing. For the reader, there is no clear
message.
o The passage concerning the â##gastrin-linkâ## between gastral H.
pylori-infection and its effects on the regulation of GI-hormones and growth
factors should be shortened. Most of the presented studies are not relevant for
the data that is substance of the article (â##neoplasms of the colonâ##, not of
the stomach).
o Several times â##reportsâ## are mentioned without citing a reference.
o A better differentiation between studies evaluating H. pylori-presence by
serology and those with direct proof of the bacteria in colonic neoplastic tissue
would be helpful.
o The discussion of the presented results is scattered in between the lines. A
clear critical interpretation of the data is missing.
We suggest to accept this article for publishing, if the points above are properly
revised, especially the discussion need to be better structured.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 1Date:13 February 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the prevalence of H. pylori in polyps that have been
removed during lower GI endoscopy. The manuscript is dealing with a very
interesting topic, since the definite role of H. pylori infection in the development of
lower GI malignancies is still under discussion. Data from serological studies is
pointing towards an indirect influence, whereas data demonstrating a direct
presence of H. pylori in the neoplastic tissue is poor. The approach of
immunohistochemical staining of the bacteria is helpful to assess a systematic
risk profile.
There are some points concerning the design of the study and presentation of
the data that should be considered before publishing this article.
- In the conclusion it says â##existing data is not adequate to substantiate an
associationâ## and â##large number of patients are neededâ##. If the data is
not sufficient, why is it presented here? Why are not more patients included to
reach a study population for a proper statistical analysis? There is no clear
message that should be delivered by this article.
- The abstract is extremely detailed (esp. the results part). It should be focused
on the major points.
- Materials and Methods:
o Why is the sigmoid and the rectum excluded? The study protocol is not
mentioned appropriately (especially inclusion and exclusion criteria are missing).
o The protocol for IHC should be presented either in more detail, or references
should be cited for the complete protocol.
- Results:
o It is quite difficult to understand the staining patterns in the way they are
presented.
o The staining patterns stratified by the different types of polyps are presented
twice: in the text and by the table 1. The detailed description in the text is not
necessary.
o Table 1 is confusing. H. pylori presence should be presented above the
staining patterns. Then, absolute numbers of H. pylori positive polyps could be
left out since it is represented twice in the table.
- Discussion:
o In the first part, the structure is confusing. For the reader, there is no clear
message.
o The passage concerning the â##gastrin-linkâ## between gastral H.
pylori-infection and its effects on the regulation of GI-hormones and growth
factors should be shortened. Most of the presented studies are not relevant for
the data that is substance of the article (â##neoplasms of the colonâ##, not of
the stomach).
o Several times â##reportsâ## are mentioned without citing a reference.
o A better differentiation between studies evaluating H. pylori-presence by
serology and those with direct proof of the bacteria in colonic neoplastic tissue
would be helpful.
o The discussion of the presented results is scattered in between the lines. A
clear critical interpretation of the data is missing.
We suggest to accept this article for publishing, if the points above are properly
revised, especially the discussion need to be better structured.
assistant