Reviewer's report
Title:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Methods. Staining used to stage gastritis should be described.
2. Results First paragraph. The sentence: “There was no statistical difference
between the groups in terms of age” is not needed as groups are age matched.
3. Results. Instead of p = 0.000 (as SPSS reports), the authors should use p <
0.001.
4. Discussion. A reference should be added to the second sentence of 3rd
paragraph (… life-long standing.).
5. Discussion. Another interesting result is that there was no patient with
intestinal metaplasia or athrophy. It may deserve comments.
6. Discussion. Add a reference number to Fu-Jing 2007 (20, I suppose) in the
last paragraph.
7. Tables. Commas misplaced in the p-value column of all tables (0.15 instead of
0,15, for instance).
8. Discussion. Although high prevalence in the Brazilian Northeast is informed,
no data is presented, but only the reference (17).
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods. Age-matched controls. The process of matching should be disclosed
(exact age was used or an interval?, specific software used in the process?
patients and controls enrolled in the same period?, enrollment of controls). This
explanation should also explain why the number of matched controls from that of
cases.
2. Methods. It should be described how exposure to antibiotics was defined
(current, last month, in life etc.).
3. Results. The authors should provide the topographical diagnosis (for instance:
H. pylori chronic active gastritis, or H. pylori antrum predominant chronic active
gastritis) according to the updated Sydney System and, then, describe
differences in topographical distribution of gastritis between the two groups.
4. Table 3 should be redesigned.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results. The total described in the 1st line (270) is wrong (total was 113+141 =
254).
2. Discussion. Information provided on ref 29 in the 6th paragraph is not exact,
as monotherapy in that study eradicated 13/37 patients (35.1%). Although such a
low rate precludes the clinical use of monotherapy for eradicating H. pylori, it is
epidemiologically important.
3. Limitations of the present study should be discussed.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Methods. Staining used to stage gastritis should be described.
2. Results First paragraph. The sentence: “There was no statistical difference
between the groups in terms of age” is not needed as groups are age matched.
3. Results. Instead of p = 0.000 (as SPSS reports), the authors should use p <
0.001.
4. Discussion. A reference should be added to the second sentence of 3rd
paragraph (… life-long standing.).
5. Discussion. Another interesting result is that there was no patient with
intestinal metaplasia or athrophy. It may deserve comments.
6. Discussion. Add a reference number to Fu-Jing 2007 (20, I suppose) in the
last paragraph.
7. Tables. Commas misplaced in the p-value column of all tables (0.15 instead of
0,15, for instance).
8. Discussion. Although high prevalence in the Brazilian Northeast is informed,
no data is presented, but only the reference (17).
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods. Age-matched controls. The process of matching should be disclosed
(exact age was used or an interval?, specific software used in the process?
patients and controls enrolled in the same period?, enrollment of controls). This
explanation should also explain why the number of matched controls from that of
cases.
2. Methods. It should be described how exposure to antibiotics was defined
(current, last month, in life etc.).
3. Results. The authors should provide the topographical diagnosis (for instance:
H. pylori chronic active gastritis, or H. pylori antrum predominant chronic active
gastritis) according to the updated Sydney System and, then, describe
differences in topographical distribution of gastritis between the two groups.
4. Table 3 should be redesigned.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results. The total described in the 1st line (270) is wrong (total was 113+141 =
254).
2. Discussion. Information provided on ref 29 in the 6th paragraph is not exact,
as monotherapy in that study eradicated 13/37 patients (35.1%). Although such a
low rate precludes the clinical use of monotherapy for eradicating H. pylori, it is
epidemiologically important.
3. Limitations of the present study should be discussed.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Low prevalence of H. pylori Infection in HIV-Positive Patients in the
Northeast of Brazil
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Methods. Staining used to stage gastritis should be described.
2. Results First paragraph. The sentence: “There was no statistical difference
between the groups in terms of age” is not needed as groups are age matched.
3. Results. Instead of p = 0.000 (as SPSS reports), the authors should use p <
0.001.
4. Discussion. A reference should be added to the second sentence of 3rd
paragraph (… life-long standing.).
5. Discussion. Another interesting result is that there was no patient with
intestinal metaplasia or athrophy. It may deserve comments.
6. Discussion. Add a reference number to Fu-Jing 2007 (20, I suppose) in the
last paragraph.
7. Tables. Commas misplaced in the p-value column of all tables (0.15 instead of
0,15, for instance).
8. Discussion. Although high prevalence in the Brazilian Northeast is informed,
no data is presented, but only the reference (17).
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Methods. Age-matched controls. The process of matching should be disclosed
(exact age was used or an interval?, specific software used in the process?
patients and controls enrolled in the same period?, enrollment of controls). This
explanation should also explain why the number of matched controls from that of
cases.
2. Methods. It should be described how exposure to antibiotics was defined
(current, last month, in life etc.).
3. Results. The authors should provide the topographical diagnosis (for instance:
H. pylori chronic active gastritis, or H. pylori antrum predominant chronic active
gastritis) according to the updated Sydney System and, then, describe
differences in topographical distribution of gastritis between the two groups.
4. Table 3 should be redesigned.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Results. The total described in the 1st line (270) is wrong (total was 113+141 =
254).
2. Discussion. Information provided on ref 29 in the 6th paragraph is not exact,
as monotherapy in that study eradicated 13/37 patients (35.1%). Although such a
low rate precludes the clinical use of monotherapy for eradicating H. pylori, it is
epidemiologically important.
3. Limitations of the present study should be discussed.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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