Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy
and non invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C
Version: 1Date:26 January 2011
Reviewer: Salvatore Petta
Reviewer's report:
In the present study Boursier and Colleagues evaluated the accuracy of fibrosis
classifications of non-invasive tests in comparison with liver biopsy. The paper
shows some interesting data, however overall it is not innovative and several
important methodological issues must be reconsidered:
- The study is confusing. The results on different populations should be clearly
showed
- Populations 3 and 4 are relative to two not published studies. Therefore it is not
possible to known the characteristics of these populations
- The results are not original, the same group have recently published the results
of
SNIFF and Fibrostar study (Clin Biochem. 2010 Nov;43)
- In the largest population 2 liver biopsies were not evaluated by a consensus of
expert pathologist.
- The authors should investigate factors associated with discrepancies in different
invasive and noninvasive tests
- How many patients had a liver biopsy < 20 mm?. By excluding these patients it
should be possible to observe an improvement in interobserver agreement
between pathologists
- The characteristic of the study do not allow to consider noninvasive tests better
than liver biopsy in clinical practice
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy
and non invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C
Version: 1Date:26 January 2011
Reviewer: Salvatore Petta
Reviewer's report:
In the present study Boursier and Colleagues evaluated the accuracy of fibrosis
classifications of non-invasive tests in comparison with liver biopsy. The paper
shows some interesting data, however overall it is not innovative and several
important methodological issues must be reconsidered:
- The study is confusing. The results on different populations should be clearly
showed
- Populations 3 and 4 are relative to two not published studies. Therefore it is not
possible to known the characteristics of these populations
- The results are not original, the same group have recently published the results
of
SNIFF and Fibrostar study (Clin Biochem. 2010 Nov;43)
- In the largest population 2 liver biopsies were not evaluated by a consensus of
expert pathologist.
- The authors should investigate factors associated with discrepancies in different
invasive and noninvasive tests
- How many patients had a liver biopsy < 20 mm?. By excluding these patients it
should be possible to observe an improvement in interobserver agreement
between pathologists
- The characteristic of the study do not allow to consider noninvasive tests better
than liver biopsy in clinical practice
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparison of accuracy of fibrosis degree classifications by liver biopsy
and non invasive tests in chronic hepatitis C
Version: 1Date:26 January 2011
Reviewer: Salvatore Petta
Reviewer's report:
In the present study Boursier and Colleagues evaluated the accuracy of fibrosis
classifications of non-invasive tests in comparison with liver biopsy. The paper
shows some interesting data, however overall it is not innovative and several
important methodological issues must be reconsidered:
- The study is confusing. The results on different populations should be clearly
showed
- Populations 3 and 4 are relative to two not published studies. Therefore it is not
possible to known the characteristics of these populations
- The results are not original, the same group have recently published the results
of
SNIFF and Fibrostar study (Clin Biochem. 2010 Nov;43)
- In the largest population 2 liver biopsies were not evaluated by a consensus of
expert pathologist.
- The authors should investigate factors associated with discrepancies in different
invasive and noninvasive tests
- How many patients had a liver biopsy < 20 mm?. By excluding these patients it
should be possible to observe an improvement in interobserver agreement
between pathologists
- The characteristic of the study do not allow to consider noninvasive tests better
than liver biopsy in clinical practice
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant