Reviewer's report
Title:Association of an NF-kappaB1 intron SNP (rs4648068) with gastric cancer
patients in Chinese Han population
Version: 2Date:20 January 2012
Reviewer: Jyotsna Batra
Reviewer's report:
The current study has been conducted on a very small no of samples, so doesn't
have adequate power to reach to a conclusion, thus is unacceptable unless is
replicated in another cohort. please see my response to the editorial Q's below;
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes 2. Are the methods
appropriate and well described? No, small sample size and inadequate power.
3. Are the data sound? NO, lack of power.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and
adequately supported by the data? Yes 6. Are limitations of the work clearly
stated? partly 7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they
are building, both published and unpublished? Yes 8. Do the title and abstract
accurately convey what has been found? Yes, but the conclusion is not
imperative due to lack of the power 9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Reviewer's report
Title:Association of an NF-kappaB1 intron SNP (rs4648068) with gastric cancer
patients in Chinese Han population
Version: 2Date:20 January 2012
Reviewer: Jyotsna Batra
Reviewer's report:
The current study has been conducted on a very small no of samples, so doesn't
have adequate power to reach to a conclusion, thus is unacceptable unless is
replicated in another cohort. please see my response to the editorial Q's below;
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes 2. Are the methods
appropriate and well described? No, small sample size and inadequate power.
3. Are the data sound? NO, lack of power.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and
adequately supported by the data? Yes 6. Are limitations of the work clearly
stated? partly 7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they
are building, both published and unpublished? Yes 8. Do the title and abstract
accurately convey what has been found? Yes, but the conclusion is not
imperative due to lack of the power 9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Association of an NF-kappaB1 intron SNP (rs4648068) with gastric cancer
patients in Chinese Han population
Version: 2Date:20 January 2012
Reviewer: Jyotsna Batra
Reviewer's report:
The current study has been conducted on a very small no of samples, so doesn't
have adequate power to reach to a conclusion, thus is unacceptable unless is
replicated in another cohort. please see my response to the editorial Q's below;
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes 2. Are the methods
appropriate and well described? No, small sample size and inadequate power.
3. Are the data sound? NO, lack of power.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes 5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and
adequately supported by the data? Yes 6. Are limitations of the work clearly
stated? partly 7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they
are building, both published and unpublished? Yes 8. Do the title and abstract
accurately convey what has been found? Yes, but the conclusion is not
imperative due to lack of the power 9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
assistant