Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  27 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Iradj Sobhani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
- Major Compulsory Revisions 
This is an interesting retrospective clinical study aiming to show that 
blood group O may be considered as a marker to predict risk for gastric 
cancer because found in 68% of cases vs 27% of controls. However several following points requires further investigation or clarification 
1- There is no clear to me why this study should be considered as 
"prospective" ? since no follow up has been done in individuals 
2- How did they perform matching of the trial; the procedure should be 
developed 
3- Why the sex ratio is =1 in the study group? Was it any selection of 
individuals? 
4- How authors verify information obtained from patients? Did they check 
diagnosis of cancer presumably declared for relatives? If yes please give details; if not how did they handle with mistakes 
5- Authors should describe gastric cancers in term of location, 
pathology description extension etc.. since they selected patients from files. 
6- More extensive description is needed to compare two populations. They 
should in a table show usual characteristics 
7- There is no clear which statistical procedure they've chosen to 
compare these populations. The paragraph is missing in methods 
8- Authors should focuse their discussion on their results rather than give 
summary of the literature : for intance how would result change if they did 
not match groups on gender? Because the sexe ratio of gastric cancer after 50 yeras old is 2m for 1 f 
- Minor Essential Revisions 1- They should match on geographic origin of patients 
2- Why did authors mention H; pylori in introduction? Have they checked 
any marker for this? 
3- Figures are of poor quality; please change 
4- Can authors give any information on prognosis of cancer in these groups? 
5- Introduction and discussion should be considerably shortened 
Statistical review 
------------------ 
- Yes 
because the main result is based on the comparison of two groups and methods are not shown 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none 
Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  27 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Iradj Sobhani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
- Major Compulsory Revisions 
This is an interesting retrospective clinical study aiming to show that 
blood group O may be considered as a marker to predict risk for gastric 
cancer because found in 68% of cases vs 27% of controls. However several following points requires further investigation or clarification 
1- There is no clear to me why this study should be considered as 
"prospective" ? since no follow up has been done in individuals 
2- How did they perform matching of the trial; the procedure should be 
developed 
3- Why the sex ratio is =1 in the study group? Was it any selection of 
individuals? 
4- How authors verify information obtained from patients? Did they check 
diagnosis of cancer presumably declared for relatives? If yes please give details; if not how did they handle with mistakes 
5- Authors should describe gastric cancers in term of location, 
pathology description extension etc.. since they selected patients from files. 
6- More extensive description is needed to compare two populations. They 
should in a table show usual characteristics 
7- There is no clear which statistical procedure they've chosen to 
compare these populations. The paragraph is missing in methods 
8- Authors should focuse their discussion on their results rather than give 
summary of the literature : for intance how would result change if they did 
not match groups on gender? Because the sexe ratio of gastric cancer after 50 yeras old is 2m for 1 f 
- Minor Essential Revisions 1- They should match on geographic origin of patients 
2- Why did authors mention H; pylori in introduction? Have they checked 
any marker for this? 
3- Figures are of poor quality; please change 
4- Can authors give any information on prognosis of cancer in these groups? 
5- Introduction and discussion should be considerably shortened 
Statistical review 
------------------ 
- Yes 
because the main result is based on the comparison of two groups and methods are not shown 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Hereditary risk factors in development of gastric cancer in young age group in a high-incidence Title: 
area for Helicobacter Pylori
 2  27 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Iradj Sobhani Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
- Major Compulsory Revisions 
This is an interesting retrospective clinical study aiming to show that 
blood group O may be considered as a marker to predict risk for gastric 
cancer because found in 68% of cases vs 27% of controls. However several following points requires further investigation or clarification 
1- There is no clear to me why this study should be considered as 
"prospective" ? since no follow up has been done in individuals 
2- How did they perform matching of the trial; the procedure should be 
developed 
3- Why the sex ratio is =1 in the study group? Was it any selection of 
individuals? 
4- How authors verify information obtained from patients? Did they check 
diagnosis of cancer presumably declared for relatives? If yes please give details; if not how did they handle with mistakes 
5- Authors should describe gastric cancers in term of location, 
pathology description extension etc.. since they selected patients from files. 
6- More extensive description is needed to compare two populations. They 
should in a table show usual characteristics 
7- There is no clear which statistical procedure they've chosen to 
compare these populations. The paragraph is missing in methods 
8- Authors should focuse their discussion on their results rather than give 
summary of the literature : for intance how would result change if they did 
not match groups on gender? Because the sexe ratio of gastric cancer after 50 yeras old is 2m for 1 f 
- Minor Essential Revisions 1- They should match on geographic origin of patients 
2- Why did authors mention H; pylori in introduction? Have they checked 
any marker for this? 
3- Figures are of poor quality; please change 
4- Can authors give any information on prognosis of cancer in these groups? 
5- Introduction and discussion should be considerably shortened 
Statistical review 
------------------ 
- Yes 
because the main result is based on the comparison of two groups and methods are not shown 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
none 
assistant