Reviewer's report
Title:The occurrence of Urinary Tract Infection before development of Primary
Biliary Cirrhosis: a case control study.
Version: 1Date:10 March 2011
Reviewer: Ikuko Haruta
Reviewer's report:
The authors studied OR of UTI and smoking as risk factors of PBC. There are
already several reports about these (plus additional factors). So the findings in
this report seemed to be not novel.
1) Was ethnicity considered for characteristic of cases?
2) In Table 1, smokers were classified never, ever and missing. How about
current and former?
3) Does ‘CI’ mean ‘95% CI’?
4) Although authors commented about diabetes as a known risk factor for the
development of UTI in page 7 and listed in the Table 1, there was no analysis
and argument about diabetes in Discussion.
5) Page 13, line 267-268 is over speculation. Did authors studied about the
cause of UTI? Was there any information that E. coli was dominant in these PBC
patients’ urine culture, when they had been diagnosed as pyelonephritis? Any
supportive data?
6) Page 14, line 289, what do you mean ‘some laboratory’?
7) The first time when authors wrote bacterial name, it should be written full
spelling.
(page 4, line 75; N. aromaticivorans, page 8, line 160 E. coli.) And E. coli should
be expressed Italic (page p14, line 291 and 293).
8) Page 13, line 274-276, ‘ Secondary … urothelial membrane’ is over
speculation as well. Any evidence or referenced paper?
9) Is reference number 23, (Suppl A-837) published paper ?
Reviewer's report
Title:The occurrence of Urinary Tract Infection before development of Primary
Biliary Cirrhosis: a case control study.
Version: 1Date:10 March 2011
Reviewer: Ikuko Haruta
Reviewer's report:
The authors studied OR of UTI and smoking as risk factors of PBC. There are
already several reports about these (plus additional factors). So the findings in
this report seemed to be not novel.
1) Was ethnicity considered for characteristic of cases?
2) In Table 1, smokers were classified never, ever and missing. How about
current and former?
3) Does ‘CI’ mean ‘95% CI’?
4) Although authors commented about diabetes as a known risk factor for the
development of UTI in page 7 and listed in the Table 1, there was no analysis
and argument about diabetes in Discussion.
5) Page 13, line 267-268 is over speculation. Did authors studied about the
cause of UTI? Was there any information that E. coli was dominant in these PBC
patients’ urine culture, when they had been diagnosed as pyelonephritis? Any
supportive data?
6) Page 14, line 289, what do you mean ‘some laboratory’?
7) The first time when authors wrote bacterial name, it should be written full
spelling.
(page 4, line 75; N. aromaticivorans, page 8, line 160 E. coli.) And E. coli should
be expressed Italic (page p14, line 291 and 293).
8) Page 13, line 274-276, ‘ Secondary … urothelial membrane’ is over
speculation as well. Any evidence or referenced paper?
9) Is reference number 23, (Suppl A-837) published paper ?
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The occurrence of Urinary Tract Infection before development of Primary
Biliary Cirrhosis: a case control study.
Version: 1Date:10 March 2011
Reviewer: Ikuko Haruta
Reviewer's report:
The authors studied OR of UTI and smoking as risk factors of PBC. There are
already several reports about these (plus additional factors). So the findings in
this report seemed to be not novel.
1) Was ethnicity considered for characteristic of cases?
2) In Table 1, smokers were classified never, ever and missing. How about
current and former?
3) Does ‘CI’ mean ‘95% CI’?
4) Although authors commented about diabetes as a known risk factor for the
development of UTI in page 7 and listed in the Table 1, there was no analysis
and argument about diabetes in Discussion.
5) Page 13, line 267-268 is over speculation. Did authors studied about the
cause of UTI? Was there any information that E. coli was dominant in these PBC
patients’ urine culture, when they had been diagnosed as pyelonephritis? Any
supportive data?
6) Page 14, line 289, what do you mean ‘some laboratory’?
7) The first time when authors wrote bacterial name, it should be written full
spelling.
(page 4, line 75; N. aromaticivorans, page 8, line 160 E. coli.) And E. coli should
be expressed Italic (page p14, line 291 and 293).
8) Page 13, line 274-276, ‘ Secondary … urothelial membrane’ is over
speculation as well. Any evidence or referenced paper?
9) Is reference number 23, (Suppl A-837) published paper ?
assistant