Reviewer's report
Title:Dietary intakes in people with irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:7 December 2010
Reviewer: Per G Farup
Reviewer's report:
The revision has markedly improved the paper, but I still recommend some minor
revisions and clarifications.
It is my impression that the authors have limited experience with scientific writing,
and the paper could easily be improved with some assistance. Beyond that, the
language is of course good. I propose the following minor revisions.
1. The participants are referred to as “people with IBS”, “IBS sufferers”, “IBS
patients”, “IBS participants” and perhaps more. Please be consistent and correct.
You do not know if they suffer (but they have symptoms), and they are not
patients (they are recruited via posters etc.). I also strongly dislike “IBS subjects”.
I have seen hundreds of these people and have never seen an “IBS subject” or
“IBS patient”, but hundreds of subjects and patients with IBS (we have to refer to
people with respect!) I prefer “subjects with IBS” since they are recruited from the
general population after advertising.
2. The “Result” contains a lot of double information. The text refers to the table,
and when I have studied the table and return to the text, I find exactly the same
information. Please shorten.
3. In the “Discussion” I miss some points:
• I miss a better discussion of the discrepancy between the low BMI and high
energy intake in women. Why do you think the energy expenditure in is higher
and BMI lower in women with IBS? Are they more physically active, do they have
a slight malabsorption or hyperthyreoidisme?
• I also miss a discussion of the discrepancy between this study which shows that
the food intake is adequate, and other studies which clearly show that a
proportion of the subjects have an inadequate diet. Your results probably apply
only to subjects with IBS in the general population, whereas a significant
proportion of subjects with IBS seen at gastroenterological units have
malnutrition. Please discuss this discrepancy.
• You have performed multiple testing, why not correct the level of significance
(e.g. Bonferroni correction)?
4. Table 1 describes IBS Type A, C and D without any explanation.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Dietary intakes in people with irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:7 December 2010
Reviewer: Per G Farup
Reviewer's report:
The revision has markedly improved the paper, but I still recommend some minor
revisions and clarifications.
It is my impression that the authors have limited experience with scientific writing,
and the paper could easily be improved with some assistance. Beyond that, the
language is of course good. I propose the following minor revisions.
1. The participants are referred to as “people with IBS”, “IBS sufferers”, “IBS
patients”, “IBS participants” and perhaps more. Please be consistent and correct.
You do not know if they suffer (but they have symptoms), and they are not
patients (they are recruited via posters etc.). I also strongly dislike “IBS subjects”.
I have seen hundreds of these people and have never seen an “IBS subject” or
“IBS patient”, but hundreds of subjects and patients with IBS (we have to refer to
people with respect!) I prefer “subjects with IBS” since they are recruited from the
general population after advertising.
2. The “Result” contains a lot of double information. The text refers to the table,
and when I have studied the table and return to the text, I find exactly the same
information. Please shorten.
3. In the “Discussion” I miss some points:
• I miss a better discussion of the discrepancy between the low BMI and high
energy intake in women. Why do you think the energy expenditure in is higher
and BMI lower in women with IBS? Are they more physically active, do they have
a slight malabsorption or hyperthyreoidisme?
• I also miss a discussion of the discrepancy between this study which shows that
the food intake is adequate, and other studies which clearly show that a
proportion of the subjects have an inadequate diet. Your results probably apply
only to subjects with IBS in the general population, whereas a significant
proportion of subjects with IBS seen at gastroenterological units have
malnutrition. Please discuss this discrepancy.
• You have performed multiple testing, why not correct the level of significance
(e.g. Bonferroni correction)?
4. Table 1 describes IBS Type A, C and D without any explanation.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Dietary intakes in people with irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 2Date:7 December 2010
Reviewer: Per G Farup
Reviewer's report:
The revision has markedly improved the paper, but I still recommend some minor
revisions and clarifications.
It is my impression that the authors have limited experience with scientific writing,
and the paper could easily be improved with some assistance. Beyond that, the
language is of course good. I propose the following minor revisions.
1. The participants are referred to as “people with IBS”, “IBS sufferers”, “IBS
patients”, “IBS participants” and perhaps more. Please be consistent and correct.
You do not know if they suffer (but they have symptoms), and they are not
patients (they are recruited via posters etc.). I also strongly dislike “IBS subjects”.
I have seen hundreds of these people and have never seen an “IBS subject” or
“IBS patient”, but hundreds of subjects and patients with IBS (we have to refer to
people with respect!) I prefer “subjects with IBS” since they are recruited from the
general population after advertising.
2. The “Result” contains a lot of double information. The text refers to the table,
and when I have studied the table and return to the text, I find exactly the same
information. Please shorten.
3. In the “Discussion” I miss some points:
• I miss a better discussion of the discrepancy between the low BMI and high
energy intake in women. Why do you think the energy expenditure in is higher
and BMI lower in women with IBS? Are they more physically active, do they have
a slight malabsorption or hyperthyreoidisme?
• I also miss a discussion of the discrepancy between this study which shows that
the food intake is adequate, and other studies which clearly show that a
proportion of the subjects have an inadequate diet. Your results probably apply
only to subjects with IBS in the general population, whereas a significant
proportion of subjects with IBS seen at gastroenterological units have
malnutrition. Please discuss this discrepancy.
• You have performed multiple testing, why not correct the level of significance
(e.g. Bonferroni correction)?
4. Table 1 describes IBS Type A, C and D without any explanation.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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