Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 1  26 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Guruprasad Aithal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a large population based database study investigating time trends in the socioeconomic difference sin the cancer incidence. Study has used sound methodology and the results are reported with attention to detail. But, the discussion as it is dull and can be improved by rewriting it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
As the main focus of the paper is to investigate the time trends of incidence of cancer in diffrent 
socioeconomic classes, it is usefull to group those which have not changed, increased and decreased 
together in the discussion. Then discuss why each group are behaving that way in terms of what risk factors 
are effecting what? 
Discussion as it is presented is dull. It will be most intersting to discuss whether the findings of the study 
support the authors own hypothesis ( as in the introduction) that 'lower classes adopt life habits of higher classes over a period time'. If that is true which cancer trends are supportive of this and which are not. 
- Authors present both arguments in support of this (smoking in women) as well as against (physical activity 
has increased in higher socioeconomic group and decreased in lower group). 
Another point to clarify in the discussion- is whether the findings support to the theory that incidence rates in 
the higher class in the past accurately reflect the population incidence now. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest. 
Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 1  26 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Guruprasad Aithal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a large population based database study investigating time trends in the socioeconomic difference sin the cancer incidence. Study has used sound methodology and the results are reported with attention to detail. But, the discussion as it is dull and can be improved by rewriting it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
As the main focus of the paper is to investigate the time trends of incidence of cancer in diffrent 
socioeconomic classes, it is usefull to group those which have not changed, increased and decreased 
together in the discussion. Then discuss why each group are behaving that way in terms of what risk factors 
are effecting what? 
Discussion as it is presented is dull. It will be most intersting to discuss whether the findings of the study 
support the authors own hypothesis ( as in the introduction) that 'lower classes adopt life habits of higher classes over a period time'. If that is true which cancer trends are supportive of this and which are not. 
- Authors present both arguments in support of this (smoking in women) as well as against (physical activity 
has increased in higher socioeconomic group and decreased in lower group). 
Another point to clarify in the discussion- is whether the findings support to the theory that incidence rates in 
the higher class in the past accurately reflect the population incidence now. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Time trends in socioeconomic differences in inciedence rates of cancers of gastro-intestinal tract in Title: 
Finland 
 1  26 July 2006 Version: Date: 
 Guruprasad Aithal Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is a large population based database study investigating time trends in the socioeconomic difference sin the cancer incidence. Study has used sound methodology and the results are reported with attention to detail. But, the discussion as it is dull and can be improved by rewriting it. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
As the main focus of the paper is to investigate the time trends of incidence of cancer in diffrent 
socioeconomic classes, it is usefull to group those which have not changed, increased and decreased 
together in the discussion. Then discuss why each group are behaving that way in terms of what risk factors 
are effecting what? 
Discussion as it is presented is dull. It will be most intersting to discuss whether the findings of the study 
support the authors own hypothesis ( as in the introduction) that 'lower classes adopt life habits of higher classes over a period time'. If that is true which cancer trends are supportive of this and which are not. 
- Authors present both arguments in support of this (smoking in women) as well as against (physical activity 
has increased in higher socioeconomic group and decreased in lower group). 
Another point to clarify in the discussion- is whether the findings support to the theory that incidence rates in 
the higher class in the past accurately reflect the population incidence now. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I have no competing interest. 
assistant