Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania
Version: 1Date:28 September 2007
Reviewer: Wieger P Voskuijl
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
When reviewing the manuscript it did not appear clear to me what the exact aim
of this study and why it was undertaken.
For example why did you choose the combination of Europe and Oceania to
assess prevalence. You do not make clear in your introduction whether you
chose only reports on functional constipation. (i.e. no organic causes van be
found). Could it not be concluded on before hand thatthe prevalence rates would
vary according to the definition used? And that prevalence rates would vary
according to the population researched?
The introduction should focus on your aim; to investigate the prevalence in these
continents. When you explain the concept functional GI disease you should be
more specific and clear. Functional disorders can not be called fucntional in a
group with a known organic disorder like Parkinson or diabetes (discussion
paragraph 5). What is the meaning of the information provided bythe second and
third paragraph of the introduction?
Is the am to compare the prevalence of Europe and Oceania to the United
States?
Why did you include french articles? Is it not true that articles not published in
English are of lower scientific quality?
The first line of the second paragraph of the methods section is actually
introdcution.
DPW is an abreviation and should be explained first. It is generally known that by
using different definitions the range of prevalence rates will be very wide. Either
state this or restrict to articles using one definition.
Then you state in your result (2nd paragraph). "Thus it is useful ...of constipation
used." Maybe you should do so then right away.
Your discussion is too long and should focus on what your results add and
compare them to other authers on this subject.
Finally, since functional constipation is functional and its etiology is unknown, you
cannot call it a disease (final line of the discussion). It is a symptom complex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania
Version: 1Date:28 September 2007
Reviewer: Wieger P Voskuijl
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
When reviewing the manuscript it did not appear clear to me what the exact aim
of this study and why it was undertaken.
For example why did you choose the combination of Europe and Oceania to
assess prevalence. You do not make clear in your introduction whether you
chose only reports on functional constipation. (i.e. no organic causes van be
found). Could it not be concluded on before hand thatthe prevalence rates would
vary according to the definition used? And that prevalence rates would vary
according to the population researched?
The introduction should focus on your aim; to investigate the prevalence in these
continents. When you explain the concept functional GI disease you should be
more specific and clear. Functional disorders can not be called fucntional in a
group with a known organic disorder like Parkinson or diabetes (discussion
paragraph 5). What is the meaning of the information provided bythe second and
third paragraph of the introduction?
Is the am to compare the prevalence of Europe and Oceania to the United
States?
Why did you include french articles? Is it not true that articles not published in
English are of lower scientific quality?
The first line of the second paragraph of the methods section is actually
introdcution.
DPW is an abreviation and should be explained first. It is generally known that by
using different definitions the range of prevalence rates will be very wide. Either
state this or restrict to articles using one definition.
Then you state in your result (2nd paragraph). "Thus it is useful ...of constipation
used." Maybe you should do so then right away.
Your discussion is too long and should focus on what your results add and
compare them to other authers on this subject.
Finally, since functional constipation is functional and its etiology is unknown, you
cannot call it a disease (final line of the discussion). It is a symptom complex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania
Version: 1Date:28 September 2007
Reviewer: Wieger P Voskuijl
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
When reviewing the manuscript it did not appear clear to me what the exact aim
of this study and why it was undertaken.
For example why did you choose the combination of Europe and Oceania to
assess prevalence. You do not make clear in your introduction whether you
chose only reports on functional constipation. (i.e. no organic causes van be
found). Could it not be concluded on before hand thatthe prevalence rates would
vary according to the definition used? And that prevalence rates would vary
according to the population researched?
The introduction should focus on your aim; to investigate the prevalence in these
continents. When you explain the concept functional GI disease you should be
more specific and clear. Functional disorders can not be called fucntional in a
group with a known organic disorder like Parkinson or diabetes (discussion
paragraph 5). What is the meaning of the information provided bythe second and
third paragraph of the introduction?
Is the am to compare the prevalence of Europe and Oceania to the United
States?
Why did you include french articles? Is it not true that articles not published in
English are of lower scientific quality?
The first line of the second paragraph of the methods section is actually
introdcution.
DPW is an abreviation and should be explained first. It is generally known that by
using different definitions the range of prevalence rates will be very wide. Either
state this or restrict to articles using one definition.
Then you state in your result (2nd paragraph). "Thus it is useful ...of constipation
used." Maybe you should do so then right away.
Your discussion is too long and should focus on what your results add and
compare them to other authers on this subject.
Finally, since functional constipation is functional and its etiology is unknown, you
cannot call it a disease (final line of the discussion). It is a symptom complex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish
Level of interest: An article of insufficient interest to warrant publication in a
scientific/medical journal
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant