Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:3Date:3 January 2015
Reviewer: Ivy Shiue
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision that has been improved its clarity a bit. However, there
are still a few unclear description and statements. Please find them below and
revise accordingly.
1) Introduction: In the first sentence, those clinical reactions are "complications"
or "symptoms" but not "diagnostic problems (this is about diagnostic tools or
skills)". It is also unclear whether the 56 patients were in the current study, in
DBPCFC or other studies (citation would be needed). It does not make sense to
only select some individuals to undergo the testing when it's needed to test food
allergy. Is there any other alternative? If yes, how do they compare with each
other?
2) Method: Suggest the authors using a few subheadings to guide the reading,
such as "study design and study catchment", "case ascertainment", "control
selection", "measurements", "statistical analysis", "ethics approval" and "funding
source". Also suggest using a diagram to illustrate how cases and controls were
recruited and selected including the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
numbers of cases and controls in the case group and controls are unclear. It's
also confusing in the tables. Who were in the case group? Who were in the
control group? Patients? Healthy people? Figure 1 does not correspond to tables
in terms of number of patients and controls. There should be separate diagrams
for selecting patients and controls.
3) Results: Please clarify tables and figures. Suggest Table 1 - demographics
and clinical characteristics of patients and controls or by case and control groups,
Table 2 - IgE and non-IgE initiated allergic reactions of patients, Table 3 -
associations of diets and what? only in control group? What is to be compared?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:3Date:3 January 2015
Reviewer: Ivy Shiue
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision that has been improved its clarity a bit. However, there
are still a few unclear description and statements. Please find them below and
revise accordingly.
1) Introduction: In the first sentence, those clinical reactions are "complications"
or "symptoms" but not "diagnostic problems (this is about diagnostic tools or
skills)". It is also unclear whether the 56 patients were in the current study, in
DBPCFC or other studies (citation would be needed). It does not make sense to
only select some individuals to undergo the testing when it's needed to test food
allergy. Is there any other alternative? If yes, how do they compare with each
other?
2) Method: Suggest the authors using a few subheadings to guide the reading,
such as "study design and study catchment", "case ascertainment", "control
selection", "measurements", "statistical analysis", "ethics approval" and "funding
source". Also suggest using a diagram to illustrate how cases and controls were
recruited and selected including the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
numbers of cases and controls in the case group and controls are unclear. It's
also confusing in the tables. Who were in the case group? Who were in the
control group? Patients? Healthy people? Figure 1 does not correspond to tables
in terms of number of patients and controls. There should be separate diagrams
for selecting patients and controls.
3) Results: Please clarify tables and figures. Suggest Table 1 - demographics
and clinical characteristics of patients and controls or by case and control groups,
Table 2 - IgE and non-IgE initiated allergic reactions of patients, Table 3 -
associations of diets and what? only in control group? What is to be compared?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:3Date:3 January 2015
Reviewer: Ivy Shiue
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revision that has been improved its clarity a bit. However, there
are still a few unclear description and statements. Please find them below and
revise accordingly.
1) Introduction: In the first sentence, those clinical reactions are "complications"
or "symptoms" but not "diagnostic problems (this is about diagnostic tools or
skills)". It is also unclear whether the 56 patients were in the current study, in
DBPCFC or other studies (citation would be needed). It does not make sense to
only select some individuals to undergo the testing when it's needed to test food
allergy. Is there any other alternative? If yes, how do they compare with each
other?
2) Method: Suggest the authors using a few subheadings to guide the reading,
such as "study design and study catchment", "case ascertainment", "control
selection", "measurements", "statistical analysis", "ethics approval" and "funding
source". Also suggest using a diagram to illustrate how cases and controls were
recruited and selected including the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
numbers of cases and controls in the case group and controls are unclear. It's
also confusing in the tables. Who were in the case group? Who were in the
control group? Patients? Healthy people? Figure 1 does not correspond to tables
in terms of number of patients and controls. There should be separate diagrams
for selecting patients and controls.
3) Results: Please clarify tables and figures. Suggest Table 1 - demographics
and clinical characteristics of patients and controls or by case and control groups,
Table 2 - IgE and non-IgE initiated allergic reactions of patients, Table 3 -
associations of diets and what? only in control group? What is to be compared?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
None.
assistant