Reviewer's report
Title:An Australian Audit of Vaccination Status in Children and Adolescents with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 1Date:18 March 2011
Reviewer: Fernando Fernández Bañares
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Crawford NW et al entitled “An Australian Audit of vaccination in
children….” deals about a topic that has been previously addressed in other
published papers. In addition, the conclusions are essentially coincidental with
previous published results. Essentially, they conclude that there is a poor
compliance for specific vaccination program recommended for IBD patients.
Thus, this study does not provide additional relevant information.
Major comments
1. The bibliography is not updated.
For example, the most important recently published papers concerning the
relevance of hepatitis B virus infection in IBD are not included.
2. Methods and Results.
The study was conducted between July and November 2007. Since 2007, the
awareness concerning the importance to implement vaccination programs in IBD
patients has increased. And this fact was partly due to the publication and wide
diffusion of review articles and guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic
infections in IBD. (Viget N. Gut 2008; Toruner M Gastroenterology 2008; Rahier
JF et al European evidence-based Consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and
management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohn’s
Colitis 2009; 3:47–91).
Thus, the interest of data collected in 2007 is very limited. Instead, it would be
interesting to assess if the actual knowledge about the importance of
opportunistic infection prevention has increased the implementation of the
recommended vaccination programs at present.
3. Discussion
In the discussion the authors really addressed the major methodological
limitations. That is the retrospective nature of the review, and only half of
participants being contactable. In addition the study also do not provide
information regarding if patients have a good immunological response to
vaccines since only 18% of the patients have VPD serology sample.
Minor comments
Some spelling mistakes such as patents (last paragraph of discussion) instead of
patients
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 have no financial nor non-financial competing interests about this paper.
Reviewer's report
Title:An Australian Audit of Vaccination Status in Children and Adolescents with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 1Date:18 March 2011
Reviewer: Fernando Fernández Bañares
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Crawford NW et al entitled “An Australian Audit of vaccination in
children….” deals about a topic that has been previously addressed in other
published papers. In addition, the conclusions are essentially coincidental with
previous published results. Essentially, they conclude that there is a poor
compliance for specific vaccination program recommended for IBD patients.
Thus, this study does not provide additional relevant information.
Major comments
1. The bibliography is not updated.
For example, the most important recently published papers concerning the
relevance of hepatitis B virus infection in IBD are not included.
2. Methods and Results.
The study was conducted between July and November 2007. Since 2007, the
awareness concerning the importance to implement vaccination programs in IBD
patients has increased. And this fact was partly due to the publication and wide
diffusion of review articles and guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic
infections in IBD. (Viget N. Gut 2008; Toruner M Gastroenterology 2008; Rahier
JF et al European evidence-based Consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and
management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohn’s
Colitis 2009; 3:47–91).
Thus, the interest of data collected in 2007 is very limited. Instead, it would be
interesting to assess if the actual knowledge about the importance of
opportunistic infection prevention has increased the implementation of the
recommended vaccination programs at present.
3. Discussion
In the discussion the authors really addressed the major methodological
limitations. That is the retrospective nature of the review, and only half of
participants being contactable. In addition the study also do not provide
information regarding if patients have a good immunological response to
vaccines since only 18% of the patients have VPD serology sample.
Minor comments
Some spelling mistakes such as patents (last paragraph of discussion) instead of
patients
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 have no financial nor non-financial competing interests about this paper.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:An Australian Audit of Vaccination Status in Children and Adolescents with
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Version: 1Date:18 March 2011
Reviewer: Fernando Fernández Bañares
Reviewer's report:
The paper by Crawford NW et al entitled “An Australian Audit of vaccination in
children….” deals about a topic that has been previously addressed in other
published papers. In addition, the conclusions are essentially coincidental with
previous published results. Essentially, they conclude that there is a poor
compliance for specific vaccination program recommended for IBD patients.
Thus, this study does not provide additional relevant information.
Major comments
1. The bibliography is not updated.
For example, the most important recently published papers concerning the
relevance of hepatitis B virus infection in IBD are not included.
2. Methods and Results.
The study was conducted between July and November 2007. Since 2007, the
awareness concerning the importance to implement vaccination programs in IBD
patients has increased. And this fact was partly due to the publication and wide
diffusion of review articles and guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic
infections in IBD. (Viget N. Gut 2008; Toruner M Gastroenterology 2008; Rahier
JF et al European evidence-based Consensus on the prevention, diagnosis and
management of opportunistic infections in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohn’s
Colitis 2009; 3:47–91).
Thus, the interest of data collected in 2007 is very limited. Instead, it would be
interesting to assess if the actual knowledge about the importance of
opportunistic infection prevention has increased the implementation of the
recommended vaccination programs at present.
3. Discussion
In the discussion the authors really addressed the major methodological
limitations. That is the retrospective nature of the review, and only half of
participants being contactable. In addition the study also do not provide
information regarding if patients have a good immunological response to
vaccines since only 18% of the patients have VPD serology sample.
Minor comments
Some spelling mistakes such as patents (last paragraph of discussion) instead of
patients
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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 have no financial nor non-financial competing interests about this paper.
assistant