Reviewer's report
Title:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:2Date:22 June 2015
Reviewer: Peter Jepsen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised manuscript. I like it better than the original one, and I
have no major comments. I do, however, have a few follow-up discretionary
comments for the authors to consider.
* I asked how you handled patients described as having 'obvious AH', and you
replied that patients who did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria were always defined
as having 'not AH'. If so, I think it should be stated in the methods section that
patients with missing information on the 5 diagnostic items were considered 'not
AH'.
* I also think that it would be valuable to have information about the correct
diagnosis in the other 106 - 31 = 75 patients who did not have AH. Some of these
must have had an 'uncertain diagnosis', and they might be considered AH
patients in a sensitivity analysis. My reasoning is this: If you're not certain what
the correct diagnosis is, you should have more confidence in the clinician who
was with the patient at the time. He or she DID believe that the patient had AH.
* Continuing from my previous comment, I am not familiar with the term "remote
AH".
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:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:2Date:22 June 2015
Reviewer: Peter Jepsen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised manuscript. I like it better than the original one, and I
have no major comments. I do, however, have a few follow-up discretionary
comments for the authors to consider.
* I asked how you handled patients described as having 'obvious AH', and you
replied that patients who did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria were always defined
as having 'not AH'. If so, I think it should be stated in the methods section that
patients with missing information on the 5 diagnostic items were considered 'not
AH'.
* I also think that it would be valuable to have information about the correct
diagnosis in the other 106 - 31 = 75 patients who did not have AH. Some of these
must have had an 'uncertain diagnosis', and they might be considered AH
patients in a sensitivity analysis. My reasoning is this: If you're not certain what
the correct diagnosis is, you should have more confidence in the clinician who
was with the patient at the time. He or she DID believe that the patient had AH.
* Continuing from my previous comment, I am not familiar with the term "remote
AH".
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:Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized
for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data
Version:2Date:22 June 2015
Reviewer: Peter Jepsen
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised manuscript. I like it better than the original one, and I
have no major comments. I do, however, have a few follow-up discretionary
comments for the authors to consider.
* I asked how you handled patients described as having 'obvious AH', and you
replied that patients who did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria were always defined
as having 'not AH'. If so, I think it should be stated in the methods section that
patients with missing information on the 5 diagnostic items were considered 'not
AH'.
* I also think that it would be valuable to have information about the correct
diagnosis in the other 106 - 31 = 75 patients who did not have AH. Some of these
must have had an 'uncertain diagnosis', and they might be considered AH
patients in a sensitivity analysis. My reasoning is this: If you're not certain what
the correct diagnosis is, you should have more confidence in the clinician who
was with the patient at the time. He or she DID believe that the patient had AH.
* Continuing from my previous comment, I am not familiar with the term "remote
AH".
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