Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and oesophageal cancer in Chinese women: a
case-control study
Version: 2Date:30 March 2011
Reviewer: Ian Beales
Reviewer's report:
This iteration of the manuscript is much improved and a pleasure to read. The
paper is easy to follow and logical.
Major Compulsory Revisions.
1. I do not understand how the authors claim that the risk of esophageal cancer
is inversely related to age at first birth? Pages 3 and 9. The risk appears to
increase with age at first birth. If the risk were inversely related to age at first birth
would not the OR be lower for the those mothers giving birth later in life?
2. Was any effort made to correct for the consumption of potential confounding
factors particualrly aspirin and NSAID use? It may be that these factors are not
prevalent in this population but even if this is the case, the manuscript should
cover this.
3. Although I do think the overall paper would be improved by actually including
the data for squamous and adenocarcinomas separately as well as pooled. The
authors do mention briefly, some subgroup analysis but I do feel that at the very
least the OR for birth age (the main significant finding of this study) should be
provided separately for both histological types of cancer. These data can be
provided within the text of the results section. Even if not statistically significant, it
would be useful to include these.
Discretionary Revisions
4. I would recommend including tables on squamous and adenocarcinomas
separately as well as the pooled data.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and oesophageal cancer in Chinese women: a
case-control study
Version: 2Date:30 March 2011
Reviewer: Ian Beales
Reviewer's report:
This iteration of the manuscript is much improved and a pleasure to read. The
paper is easy to follow and logical.
Major Compulsory Revisions.
1. I do not understand how the authors claim that the risk of esophageal cancer
is inversely related to age at first birth? Pages 3 and 9. The risk appears to
increase with age at first birth. If the risk were inversely related to age at first birth
would not the OR be lower for the those mothers giving birth later in life?
2. Was any effort made to correct for the consumption of potential confounding
factors particualrly aspirin and NSAID use? It may be that these factors are not
prevalent in this population but even if this is the case, the manuscript should
cover this.
3. Although I do think the overall paper would be improved by actually including
the data for squamous and adenocarcinomas separately as well as pooled. The
authors do mention briefly, some subgroup analysis but I do feel that at the very
least the OR for birth age (the main significant finding of this study) should be
provided separately for both histological types of cancer. These data can be
provided within the text of the results section. Even if not statistically significant, it
would be useful to include these.
Discretionary Revisions
4. I would recommend including tables on squamous and adenocarcinomas
separately as well as the pooled data.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Reproductive factors and oesophageal cancer in Chinese women: a
case-control study
Version: 2Date:30 March 2011
Reviewer: Ian Beales
Reviewer's report:
This iteration of the manuscript is much improved and a pleasure to read. The
paper is easy to follow and logical.
Major Compulsory Revisions.
1. I do not understand how the authors claim that the risk of esophageal cancer
is inversely related to age at first birth? Pages 3 and 9. The risk appears to
increase with age at first birth. If the risk were inversely related to age at first birth
would not the OR be lower for the those mothers giving birth later in life?
2. Was any effort made to correct for the consumption of potential confounding
factors particualrly aspirin and NSAID use? It may be that these factors are not
prevalent in this population but even if this is the case, the manuscript should
cover this.
3. Although I do think the overall paper would be improved by actually including
the data for squamous and adenocarcinomas separately as well as pooled. The
authors do mention briefly, some subgroup analysis but I do feel that at the very
least the OR for birth age (the main significant finding of this study) should be
provided separately for both histological types of cancer. These data can be
provided within the text of the results section. Even if not statistically significant, it
would be useful to include these.
Discretionary Revisions
4. I would recommend including tables on squamous and adenocarcinomas
separately as well as the pooled data.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant