Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ronnie Fass Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I am not clear about the meaning of the histological findings that the authors related to patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease and hiatal hernia. The authors claim that these are more severe histopathological findings, but provided very little information to support the claim. Additionally, the authors did not demonstrate that the presence of these histological findings in patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease is associated, for example, with more severe presentation of NERD. In 
fact, the authors provided no insight into the meaning of their findings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. On the background: Reference #1 is 12 years old and there are other more updated references. 
2. Background, Paragraph 3: Change the word “elusive” to “unknown”. 
3. Methods: Is there a reason why the authors elected to biopsy the esophagus 3 cm above the lower 
esophageal sphincter and not somewhere else? 
4. Results: The results are presented with almost no p values. I am not clear if the superiority of one 
over the other is numerically or statistically determined. 
5. “P=2,61E-6” is unclear. 
6. The last paragraph under histological finding that includes information about “basal zone 
hyperplasia and loss of glycogen accompanied hiatal hernia in all cases …” has unclear meaning. The authors should further elaborate on the meaning of seeing certain histological findings in 
patients with hiatal hernia as compared with those without hiatal hernia. 
7. Discussion, first paragraph: citation #1 is used even though the statement that is made has 
nothing to do with this citation. 
8. Discussion, last paragraph: The explanation is very confusing and the authors should make an 
effort to clarify it. 
9. Table 1: Add percentages to the numbers. 
10. Figure 1: Instead of the number of patients, change to percentages. 
11. Figure 3: Overall, the number of subjects is small and p values are missing. 
12. Figure 4: P values are missing and different colors are needed to separate the different 
histopathological findings. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
Reviewer's report 
 Impact of hiatal hernia on histological pattern of non-erosive reflux disease Title: 
 1  14 September 2004 Version: Date: 
 Ronnie Fass Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I am not clear about the meaning of the histological findings that the authors related to patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease and hiatal hernia. The authors claim that these are more severe histopathological findings, but provided very little information to support the claim. Additionally, the authors did not demonstrate that the presence of these histological findings in patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease is associated, for example, with more severe presentation of NERD. In 
fact, the authors provided no insight into the meaning of their findings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. On the background: Reference #1 is 12 years old and there are other more updated references. 
2. Background, Paragraph 3: Change the word “elusive” to “unknown”. 
3. Methods: Is there a reason why the authors elected to biopsy the esophagus 3 cm above the lower 
esophageal sphincter and not somewhere else? 
4. Results: The results are presented with almost no p values. I am not clear if the superiority of one 
over the other is numerically or statistically determined. 
5. “P=2,61E-6” is unclear. 
6. The last paragraph under histological finding that includes information about “basal zone 
hyperplasia and loss of glycogen accompanied hiatal hernia in all cases …” has unclear meaning. The authors should further elaborate on the meaning of seeing certain histological findings in 
patients with hiatal hernia as compared with those without hiatal hernia. 
7. Discussion, first paragraph: citation #1 is used even though the statement that is made has 
nothing to do with this citation. 
8. Discussion, last paragraph: The explanation is very confusing and the authors should make an 
effort to clarify it. 
9. Table 1: Add percentages to the numbers. 
10. Figure 1: Instead of the number of patients, change to percentages. 
11. Figure 3: Overall, the number of subjects is small and p values are missing. 
12. Figure 4: P values are missing and different colors are needed to separate the different 
histopathological findings. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
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: 
 Ronnie Fass Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
I am not clear about the meaning of the histological findings that the authors related to patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease and hiatal hernia. The authors claim that these are more severe histopathological findings, but provided very little information to support the claim. Additionally, the authors did not demonstrate that the presence of these histological findings in patients with 
non-erosive reflux disease is associated, for example, with more severe presentation of NERD. In 
fact, the authors provided no insight into the meaning of their findings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
1. On the background: Reference #1 is 12 years old and there are other more updated references. 
2. Background, Paragraph 3: Change the word “elusive” to “unknown”. 
3. Methods: Is there a reason why the authors elected to biopsy the esophagus 3 cm above the lower 
esophageal sphincter and not somewhere else? 
4. Results: The results are presented with almost no p values. I am not clear if the superiority of one 
over the other is numerically or statistically determined. 
5. “P=2,61E-6” is unclear. 
6. The last paragraph under histological finding that includes information about “basal zone 
hyperplasia and loss of glycogen accompanied hiatal hernia in all cases …” has unclear meaning. The authors should further elaborate on the meaning of seeing certain histological findings in 
patients with hiatal hernia as compared with those without hiatal hernia. 
7. Discussion, first paragraph: citation #1 is used even though the statement that is made has 
nothing to do with this citation. 
8. Discussion, last paragraph: The explanation is very confusing and the authors should make an 
effort to clarify it. 
9. Table 1: Add percentages to the numbers. 
10. Figure 1: Instead of the number of patients, change to percentages. 
11. Figure 3: Overall, the number of subjects is small and p values are missing. 
12. Figure 4: P values are missing and different colors are needed to separate the different 
histopathological findings. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 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: 
 Yes Statistical review: 
assistant