Reviewer's report
Title:Severity of acute hepatitis and its outcome in patients with dengue fever in
a tertiary care hospital Karachi, Pakistan (South Asia):
Version: 6Date:25 March 2010
Reviewer: Dorothea Nitsch
Reviewer's report:
The authors have amended the manuscript as suggested, although some of what
I suggested was slightly misunderstood. With regards to the tables in the
manuscript there are still minor alterations necessary. I list them below.
-Table 1 needs further amendments. I suggested the following amendments, and
list what the authors did.
The table columns that should be presented are as follows:
1. Diagnosis categories
Done
2. Severity of hepatitis
Done
3. Deaths (n)
This was done, but the authors calculated percentages when these are in fact
wrong given the study design (because of the difference in the length of follow-up
each patient should only contribute relative to the time they were seen, that is
why I suggested to put the next column). So, please remove the percent indicator
in the table.
4. Death rate (deaths/10 days)
This was done
5. (95%CI for death rate)
The authors calculated a confidence interval for the rate ratio, and not the rates
themselves. For in total 4 different rates in this table in column 4 I would expect
to see in total 4 different confidence intervals.
I think at this stage the easiest thing is to replace this CI for the rate ratio with the
Hazard ratio and it's 95% confidence interval.
6.LOS(days) +SD
This was done
7. P value for difference in death rates (log-rank)
This was added as a separate column in the table
The authors added also a confidence interval for the difference in LOS between
the groups, but no corresponding point estimate. I would suggest to add this
point estimate (they have that measure in the text).
- Table 2: the numbers are really small - all the p-values should be Fisher's exact
test as this gives a more precise p-value in this situation. I suspect however that
changing this won't alter the main conclusions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Severity of acute hepatitis and its outcome in patients with dengue fever in
a tertiary care hospital Karachi, Pakistan (South Asia):
Version: 6Date:25 March 2010
Reviewer: Dorothea Nitsch
Reviewer's report:
The authors have amended the manuscript as suggested, although some of what
I suggested was slightly misunderstood. With regards to the tables in the
manuscript there are still minor alterations necessary. I list them below.
-Table 1 needs further amendments. I suggested the following amendments, and
list what the authors did.
The table columns that should be presented are as follows:
1. Diagnosis categories
Done
2. Severity of hepatitis
Done
3. Deaths (n)
This was done, but the authors calculated percentages when these are in fact
wrong given the study design (because of the difference in the length of follow-up
each patient should only contribute relative to the time they were seen, that is
why I suggested to put the next column). So, please remove the percent indicator
in the table.
4. Death rate (deaths/10 days)
This was done
5. (95%CI for death rate)
The authors calculated a confidence interval for the rate ratio, and not the rates
themselves. For in total 4 different rates in this table in column 4 I would expect
to see in total 4 different confidence intervals.
I think at this stage the easiest thing is to replace this CI for the rate ratio with the
Hazard ratio and it's 95% confidence interval.
6.LOS(days) +SD
This was done
7. P value for difference in death rates (log-rank)
This was added as a separate column in the table
The authors added also a confidence interval for the difference in LOS between
the groups, but no corresponding point estimate. I would suggest to add this
point estimate (they have that measure in the text).
- Table 2: the numbers are really small - all the p-values should be Fisher's exact
test as this gives a more precise p-value in this situation. I suspect however that
changing this won't alter the main conclusions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Severity of acute hepatitis and its outcome in patients with dengue fever in
a tertiary care hospital Karachi, Pakistan (South Asia):
Version: 6Date:25 March 2010
Reviewer: Dorothea Nitsch
Reviewer's report:
The authors have amended the manuscript as suggested, although some of what
I suggested was slightly misunderstood. With regards to the tables in the
manuscript there are still minor alterations necessary. I list them below.
-Table 1 needs further amendments. I suggested the following amendments, and
list what the authors did.
The table columns that should be presented are as follows:
1. Diagnosis categories
Done
2. Severity of hepatitis
Done
3. Deaths (n)
This was done, but the authors calculated percentages when these are in fact
wrong given the study design (because of the difference in the length of follow-up
each patient should only contribute relative to the time they were seen, that is
why I suggested to put the next column). So, please remove the percent indicator
in the table.
4. Death rate (deaths/10 days)
This was done
5. (95%CI for death rate)
The authors calculated a confidence interval for the rate ratio, and not the rates
themselves. For in total 4 different rates in this table in column 4 I would expect
to see in total 4 different confidence intervals.
I think at this stage the easiest thing is to replace this CI for the rate ratio with the
Hazard ratio and it's 95% confidence interval.
6.LOS(days) +SD
This was done
7. P value for difference in death rates (log-rank)
This was added as a separate column in the table
The authors added also a confidence interval for the difference in LOS between
the groups, but no corresponding point estimate. I would suggest to add this
point estimate (they have that measure in the text).
- Table 2: the numbers are really small - all the p-values should be Fisher's exact
test as this gives a more precise p-value in this situation. I suspect however that
changing this won't alter the main conclusions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant