Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 1Date:3 April 2012
Reviewer: Liz Williams
Reviewer's report:
The question is well defined and the sample size means that this is an important
piece of work worthy of publications, but details of the methodolgy need to be
improved and the limitations of the work fully acknowledged.
Major compulsory revisions
1. The methods need to be far better defined. I was unable to access the
questionnaire. Easy access to the documents in English is imperative.
2. The statement ‘Questions relevant to all subjects were used in this study’ is
meaningless. What are the authors referring to here?
3. How was information on BMI, blood pressure and pulse gathered –
self-reported?
4. It is not clear from the methods whether the subjects identified themselves as
having IBS, or whether this was derived from the answers to the questions. If the
former then were there people who believed they had IBS, but didn’t meet the
Rome criteria.
5. Was information collected on the use of medications for IBS?
6. Was the FFQ validated?
7. The limitations of the questionnaire should be stated earlier. It only becomes
apparent at the end of the discussion that this FFQ does not assess the whole
diet – bread, meat, snacks, cakes, biscuits are not considered. What was the
rationale of using a limited questionnaire?
8. The methods state that blood levels of omega 3 fatty acids from fish were
measured. What was the methods used here? Fatty acid composition of the red
blood cell membranes? How do the authors say the fats are derived from fish
rather than fish oil supplements?
Minor essential revisions
1. State in the table how portions of diary products are defined
2. State in the table whether Omega 3 fatty acids, g/day are fish derived or
include supplements.
Discretionary revisions
1. Is information available in supplement use in the IBS subjects compared to
controls?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 1Date:3 April 2012
Reviewer: Liz Williams
Reviewer's report:
The question is well defined and the sample size means that this is an important
piece of work worthy of publications, but details of the methodolgy need to be
improved and the limitations of the work fully acknowledged.
Major compulsory revisions
1. The methods need to be far better defined. I was unable to access the
questionnaire. Easy access to the documents in English is imperative.
2. The statement ‘Questions relevant to all subjects were used in this study’ is
meaningless. What are the authors referring to here?
3. How was information on BMI, blood pressure and pulse gathered –
self-reported?
4. It is not clear from the methods whether the subjects identified themselves as
having IBS, or whether this was derived from the answers to the questions. If the
former then were there people who believed they had IBS, but didn’t meet the
Rome criteria.
5. Was information collected on the use of medications for IBS?
6. Was the FFQ validated?
7. The limitations of the questionnaire should be stated earlier. It only becomes
apparent at the end of the discussion that this FFQ does not assess the whole
diet – bread, meat, snacks, cakes, biscuits are not considered. What was the
rationale of using a limited questionnaire?
8. The methods state that blood levels of omega 3 fatty acids from fish were
measured. What was the methods used here? Fatty acid composition of the red
blood cell membranes? How do the authors say the fats are derived from fish
rather than fish oil supplements?
Minor essential revisions
1. State in the table how portions of diary products are defined
2. State in the table whether Omega 3 fatty acids, g/day are fish derived or
include supplements.
Discretionary revisions
1. Is information available in supplement use in the IBS subjects compared to
controls?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: a cross-sectional study in
the general population
Version: 1Date:3 April 2012
Reviewer: Liz Williams
Reviewer's report:
The question is well defined and the sample size means that this is an important
piece of work worthy of publications, but details of the methodolgy need to be
improved and the limitations of the work fully acknowledged.
Major compulsory revisions
1. The methods need to be far better defined. I was unable to access the
questionnaire. Easy access to the documents in English is imperative.
2. The statement ‘Questions relevant to all subjects were used in this study’ is
meaningless. What are the authors referring to here?
3. How was information on BMI, blood pressure and pulse gathered –
self-reported?
4. It is not clear from the methods whether the subjects identified themselves as
having IBS, or whether this was derived from the answers to the questions. If the
former then were there people who believed they had IBS, but didn’t meet the
Rome criteria.
5. Was information collected on the use of medications for IBS?
6. Was the FFQ validated?
7. The limitations of the questionnaire should be stated earlier. It only becomes
apparent at the end of the discussion that this FFQ does not assess the whole
diet – bread, meat, snacks, cakes, biscuits are not considered. What was the
rationale of using a limited questionnaire?
8. The methods state that blood levels of omega 3 fatty acids from fish were
measured. What was the methods used here? Fatty acid composition of the red
blood cell membranes? How do the authors say the fats are derived from fish
rather than fish oil supplements?
Minor essential revisions
1. State in the table how portions of diary products are defined
2. State in the table whether Omega 3 fatty acids, g/day are fish derived or
include supplements.
Discretionary revisions
1. Is information available in supplement use in the IBS subjects compared to
controls?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant