Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 eamonn M quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting, if not surprising, observations. The relationships between HH and severe forms of 
GERD are well known. What is of interest here is the suggestion that lesser forms of esophagitis 
and "microscopic" esophagitis, in particular, are associated with HH. The numbers are small and pH 
studies were not performed; the authors cannot address the critical issue, therefore: does a HH 
predict those NERD patients who have microsopic esophagitis, positive pH tests for acid esposure 
and an excellent response to PPI? Will the absence of an HH indicate that the patient has "functional heartburn", will not respond to a PPI and may do poorly with anti-reflux surgery? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1. What is meant by "cross-fashion" manner, in page 4? 2. Was any attempt made to power the study, or how did the authors decide on the numbers of 
patients? 
3. Please check all refs for spelling of authors 4. Was any attempt made to define whether the hernias were reducing or non-reducing? 5. Figs 1 and 2 could be omitted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 eamonn M quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting, if not surprising, observations. The relationships between HH and severe forms of 
GERD are well known. What is of interest here is the suggestion that lesser forms of esophagitis 
and "microscopic" esophagitis, in particular, are associated with HH. The numbers are small and pH 
studies were not performed; the authors cannot address the critical issue, therefore: does a HH 
predict those NERD patients who have microsopic esophagitis, positive pH tests for acid esposure 
and an excellent response to PPI? Will the absence of an HH indicate that the patient has "functional heartburn", will not respond to a PPI and may do poorly with anti-reflux surgery? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1. What is meant by "cross-fashion" manner, in page 4? 2. Was any attempt made to power the study, or how did the authors decide on the numbers of 
patients? 
3. Please check all refs for spelling of authors 4. Was any attempt made to define whether the hernias were reducing or non-reducing? 5. Figs 1 and 2 could be omitted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 eamonn M quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Interesting, if not surprising, observations. The relationships between HH and severe forms of 
GERD are well known. What is of interest here is the suggestion that lesser forms of esophagitis 
and "microscopic" esophagitis, in particular, are associated with HH. The numbers are small and pH 
studies were not performed; the authors cannot address the critical issue, therefore: does a HH 
predict those NERD patients who have microsopic esophagitis, positive pH tests for acid esposure 
and an excellent response to PPI? Will the absence of an HH indicate that the patient has "functional heartburn", will not respond to a PPI and may do poorly with anti-reflux surgery? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 1. What is meant by "cross-fashion" manner, in page 4? 2. Was any attempt made to power the study, or how did the authors decide on the numbers of 
patients? 
3. Please check all refs for spelling of authors 4. Was any attempt made to define whether the hernias were reducing or non-reducing? 5. Figs 1 and 2 could be omitted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
None 
assistant