Title: Diagnosing celiac disease in children using oral manifestations
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presents an interesting investigation into the diagnosis of Celiac Disease (CD)
based on RAS and MIH. I think that it can contribute to understand more about the potential
role of oral manifestations in diagnosis, however some part need to be addressed to provide a
more detailed and precise overview of the study's finding and implications, as well as correct
some typos and grammatical issues that should be refined for clarity. Furthermore the structure
of the manuscript should be improved
1. Abstract
- the statistical analysis should be clarified better
- Provide a more specific conclusion, emphasizing the potential of MIH as a marker for CD
2. Material and Methods
- It would be useful to add an experimental design of the clinical study in which is reported
the recruitment stage; the screening of the participants with the number of participant that were
considered eligible and the number of participants for the subgroups; the analysis performed;
maybe the length of the study; the outcomes
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be better reported in a table...as inclusion or exclusion
criteria you could also add the age and the gender should be specified
- Give more information about the questionnaire used ...unless it was made of only two questions
- The statistical analysis need a specific subsection in material and methods
- More information about the reference used for the decision of the sample size should be added
or better explained
3. Results
- The demographic table can be moved in the material and method section and I would change
boy/girl with male/female in the gender row
- I suggest to write the data regarding the intensity and distribution of MIH lesion in a table
4. Discussion & Conclusion
- Several typos need to be correct e.g. demonsrated to demonstrated or a . where there should be
a comma. Unfortunately I can't be more specific as line numbers are missing in this manuscript
- My main concern is the weakness of the discussion and the clarity of the conclusion. Sometimes
it looks as repetition of the introduction. To strengthen the discussion, it would be beneficial to
delve deeper into how these findings align with or challenge existing literature, and to clarify
the clinical significance of the results.
The discussion emphasizes the potential role of dentists in diagnosing CD based on oral
manifestations, however the study's small sample size and in particular that only two children
were diagnosed with CD, should be highlighted more clearly as a limitation, suggesting caution
in generalizing the findings.
The NCGS adds an important information, but the relationship between NCGS and enamel
defects is only briefly touched.
You might expand even more about the role and findings related to the control group and in the
conclusion provide a clearer path forward suggesting which other oral manifestations might also
be worth investigating in relation to CD or highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary
approach in diagnosis CD
Title: Diagnosing celiac disease in children using oral manifestations
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presents an interesting investigation into the diagnosis of Celiac Disease (CD)
based on RAS and MIH. I think that it can contribute to understand more about the potential
role of oral manifestations in diagnosis, however some part need to be addressed to provide a
more detailed and precise overview of the study's finding and implications, as well as correct
some typos and grammatical issues that should be refined for clarity. Furthermore the structure
of the manuscript should be improved
1. Abstract
- the statistical analysis should be clarified better
- Provide a more specific conclusion, emphasizing the potential of MIH as a marker for CD
2. Material and Methods
- It would be useful to add an experimental design of the clinical study in which is reported
the recruitment stage; the screening of the participants with the number of participant that were
considered eligible and the number of participants for the subgroups; the analysis performed;
maybe the length of the study; the outcomes
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be better reported in a table...as inclusion or exclusion
criteria you could also add the age and the gender should be specified
- Give more information about the questionnaire used ...unless it was made of only two questions
- The statistical analysis need a specific subsection in material and methods
- More information about the reference used for the decision of the sample size should be added
or better explained
3. Results
- The demographic table can be moved in the material and method section and I would change
boy/girl with male/female in the gender row
- I suggest to write the data regarding the intensity and distribution of MIH lesion in a table
4. Discussion & Conclusion
- Several typos need to be correct e.g. demonsrated to demonstrated or a . where there should be
a comma. Unfortunately I can't be more specific as line numbers are missing in this manuscript
- My main concern is the weakness of the discussion and the clarity of the conclusion. Sometimes
it looks as repetition of the introduction. To strengthen the discussion, it would be beneficial to
delve deeper into how these findings align with or challenge existing literature, and to clarify
the clinical significance of the results.
The discussion emphasizes the potential role of dentists in diagnosing CD based on oral
manifestations, however the study's small sample size and in particular that only two children
were diagnosed with CD, should be highlighted more clearly as a limitation, suggesting caution
in generalizing the findings.
The NCGS adds an important information, but the relationship between NCGS and enamel
defects is only briefly touched.
You might expand even more about the role and findings related to the control group and in the
conclusion provide a clearer path forward suggesting which other oral manifestations might also
be worth investigating in relation to CD or highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary
approach in diagnosis CD
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnosing celiac disease in children using oral manifestations
Version: 3 Date: 20 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript presents an interesting investigation into the diagnosis of Celiac Disease (CD)
based on RAS and MIH. I think that it can contribute to understand more about the potential
role of oral manifestations in diagnosis, however some part need to be addressed to provide a
more detailed and precise overview of the study's finding and implications, as well as correct
some typos and grammatical issues that should be refined for clarity. Furthermore the structure
of the manuscript should be improved
1. Abstract
- the statistical analysis should be clarified better
- Provide a more specific conclusion, emphasizing the potential of MIH as a marker for CD
2. Material and Methods
- It would be useful to add an experimental design of the clinical study in which is reported
the recruitment stage; the screening of the participants with the number of participant that were
considered eligible and the number of participants for the subgroups; the analysis performed;
maybe the length of the study; the outcomes
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be better reported in a table...as inclusion or exclusion
criteria you could also add the age and the gender should be specified
- Give more information about the questionnaire used ...unless it was made of only two questions
- The statistical analysis need a specific subsection in material and methods
- More information about the reference used for the decision of the sample size should be added
or better explained
3. Results
- The demographic table can be moved in the material and method section and I would change
boy/girl with male/female in the gender row
- I suggest to write the data regarding the intensity and distribution of MIH lesion in a table
4. Discussion & Conclusion
- Several typos need to be correct e.g. demonsrated to demonstrated or a . where there should be
a comma. Unfortunately I can't be more specific as line numbers are missing in this manuscript
- My main concern is the weakness of the discussion and the clarity of the conclusion. Sometimes
it looks as repetition of the introduction. To strengthen the discussion, it would be beneficial to
delve deeper into how these findings align with or challenge existing literature, and to clarify
the clinical significance of the results.
The discussion emphasizes the potential role of dentists in diagnosing CD based on oral
manifestations, however the study's small sample size and in particular that only two children
were diagnosed with CD, should be highlighted more clearly as a limitation, suggesting caution
in generalizing the findings.
The NCGS adds an important information, but the relationship between NCGS and enamel
defects is only briefly touched.
You might expand even more about the role and findings related to the control group and in the
conclusion provide a clearer path forward suggesting which other oral manifestations might also
be worth investigating in relation to CD or highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary
approach in diagnosis CD
assistant