Reviewer's report
Title:Decreasing Incidence of Peptic Ulcer Complications Despite Increasing
Sales of Prescribed NSAID:s, a study of the Swedish Population from
1974-2002.
Version: 3Date:5 November 2008
Reviewer: Henrik Sorensen
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed this paper before and, as mentioned, I believe that the material
is of high quality and eminently suitable to study trends in peptic ulcer
complications. However, the paper still has some problems:
1. The authors go too far in their interpretation of the data. For example: in the
title only NSAIDs are mentioned. However, in the conclusion of the abstract the
only explanation for the change in incidence that is mentioned is the introduction
of PPIs. As written before (and partly covered by the authors in the discussion),
there are several other explanations, such as the decreasing prevalence of
smoking and the introduction of eradication therapy in the same period.
2. The tables regarding the spline regression analysis do not provide information
in themselves. Only the figures should be included in the paper.
3. As for the figures, the changes in incidence look dramatic, but the reader
needs to be aware of the fact that the authors have truncated the y-axis. The axis
thus does not start with 0 and therefore the figures distort the changes.
4. The paper needs a thorough technical and editorial revision. For example, as
mentioned before, NSAIDs are sometimes written with an ‘s’ in the abbreviation,
and sometimes without. In the abstract ‘AcetylSalicylic Acid’ is written with
capitals and in the text without.
5. In the results of the abstract, the incidence rates are mentioned in the results
section, sentence 2. However, these incidences cannot be found anywhere in the
main text.
6. In the references the authors sometimes list one author, sometimes three.
7. There are several spelling mistakes scattered around the paper.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Decreasing Incidence of Peptic Ulcer Complications Despite Increasing
Sales of Prescribed NSAID:s, a study of the Swedish Population from
1974-2002.
Version: 3Date:5 November 2008
Reviewer: Henrik Sorensen
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed this paper before and, as mentioned, I believe that the material
is of high quality and eminently suitable to study trends in peptic ulcer
complications. However, the paper still has some problems:
1. The authors go too far in their interpretation of the data. For example: in the
title only NSAIDs are mentioned. However, in the conclusion of the abstract the
only explanation for the change in incidence that is mentioned is the introduction
of PPIs. As written before (and partly covered by the authors in the discussion),
there are several other explanations, such as the decreasing prevalence of
smoking and the introduction of eradication therapy in the same period.
2. The tables regarding the spline regression analysis do not provide information
in themselves. Only the figures should be included in the paper.
3. As for the figures, the changes in incidence look dramatic, but the reader
needs to be aware of the fact that the authors have truncated the y-axis. The axis
thus does not start with 0 and therefore the figures distort the changes.
4. The paper needs a thorough technical and editorial revision. For example, as
mentioned before, NSAIDs are sometimes written with an ‘s’ in the abbreviation,
and sometimes without. In the abstract ‘AcetylSalicylic Acid’ is written with
capitals and in the text without.
5. In the results of the abstract, the incidence rates are mentioned in the results
section, sentence 2. However, these incidences cannot be found anywhere in the
main text.
6. In the references the authors sometimes list one author, sometimes three.
7. There are several spelling mistakes scattered around the paper.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Decreasing Incidence of Peptic Ulcer Complications Despite Increasing
Sales of Prescribed NSAID:s, a study of the Swedish Population from
1974-2002.
Version: 3Date:5 November 2008
Reviewer: Henrik Sorensen
Reviewer's report:
I have reviewed this paper before and, as mentioned, I believe that the material
is of high quality and eminently suitable to study trends in peptic ulcer
complications. However, the paper still has some problems:
1. The authors go too far in their interpretation of the data. For example: in the
title only NSAIDs are mentioned. However, in the conclusion of the abstract the
only explanation for the change in incidence that is mentioned is the introduction
of PPIs. As written before (and partly covered by the authors in the discussion),
there are several other explanations, such as the decreasing prevalence of
smoking and the introduction of eradication therapy in the same period.
2. The tables regarding the spline regression analysis do not provide information
in themselves. Only the figures should be included in the paper.
3. As for the figures, the changes in incidence look dramatic, but the reader
needs to be aware of the fact that the authors have truncated the y-axis. The axis
thus does not start with 0 and therefore the figures distort the changes.
4. The paper needs a thorough technical and editorial revision. For example, as
mentioned before, NSAIDs are sometimes written with an ‘s’ in the abbreviation,
and sometimes without. In the abstract ‘AcetylSalicylic Acid’ is written with
capitals and in the text without.
5. In the results of the abstract, the incidence rates are mentioned in the results
section, sentence 2. However, these incidences cannot be found anywhere in the
main text.
6. In the references the authors sometimes list one author, sometimes three.
7. There are several spelling mistakes scattered around the paper.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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