Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 1  4 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Hugh Freeman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an important and well done study again confirming the risk of specific neoplasms in celiac disease. 
The results convey observations from a large multicenter academic group in Italy. There are no serious deficiencies and this paper should be readily accepted for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
Minor grammatical errors in manuscript (eg, page 3, line 6...should be "life-long", not long-life. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Methods are appropriate and well described but the authors may wish to offer a comment in the text of their 
discussion on the criteria used in their study to originally diagnose celiac disease. Although diagnosis was 
based on the current NIH consensus guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease in reference #22 was based on biopsy, not only before, but also after a gluten-free diet to ensure that there was histological evidence of gluten-sensitivity. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 1  4 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Hugh Freeman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an important and well done study again confirming the risk of specific neoplasms in celiac disease. 
The results convey observations from a large multicenter academic group in Italy. There are no serious deficiencies and this paper should be readily accepted for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
Minor grammatical errors in manuscript (eg, page 3, line 6...should be "life-long", not long-life. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Methods are appropriate and well described but the authors may wish to offer a comment in the text of their 
discussion on the criteria used in their study to originally diagnose celiac disease. Although diagnosis was 
based on the current NIH consensus guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease in reference #22 was based on biopsy, not only before, but also after a gluten-free diet to ensure that there was histological evidence of gluten-sensitivity. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 1  4 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 Hugh Freeman Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an important and well done study again confirming the risk of specific neoplasms in celiac disease. 
The results convey observations from a large multicenter academic group in Italy. There are no serious deficiencies and this paper should be readily accepted for publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be 
reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
Minor grammatical errors in manuscript (eg, page 3, line 6...should be "life-long", not long-life. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Methods are appropriate and well described but the authors may wish to offer a comment in the text of their 
discussion on the criteria used in their study to originally diagnose celiac disease. Although diagnosis was 
based on the current NIH consensus guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease in reference #22 was based on biopsy, not only before, but also after a gluten-free diet to ensure that there was histological evidence of gluten-sensitivity. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant