Reviewer's report
Title:Severity of acute hepatitis and its outcome in patients with dengue fever in
a tertiary care hospital Karachi, Pakistan (South Asia): An Analytic cross
sectional study.
Version: 2Date:26 November 2009
Reviewer: Fransisco Souto
Reviewer's report:
I have pointed two major compulsory revisions on my first review that I have
considered important points in this manuscript of Parkash et al.
The authors disagreed and did not convinced me about their opinions.
The material is interesting and may be usefull for readers working in the tropics. I
would like that it could be published, but I am afraid that I am correct and the
paper has major problems.
I cannot agree with the publication except the manuscript was evaluated by an
epidemiologist in order to clarify my methodological query: I think that is a
longitudinal study (the authors analyzed it as a cohort study, with Cox regression
and hazard ratios) however the authors insist that it is a cross-sectional and state
it in the title, abstract and materials. If other referees think that I am wrong, the
paper will be free to be published.
I also recomend that other hepatologist should analyze the mauscript in order to
evaluate the decision of the authors of remaining to classify patients as "mild /
moderate / severe hepatitis" only by a isolated biochemical marker (ALT). I think
it would sound more "scientific" if the authors used terms such as
"necroinflamatory activity", "biochemical liver injury", "liver cell involvement", etc.
instead "hepatitis".
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Severity of acute hepatitis and its outcome in patients with dengue fever in
a tertiary care hospital Karachi, Pakistan (South Asia): An Analytic cross
sectional study.
Version: 2Date:26 November 2009
Reviewer: Fransisco Souto
Reviewer's report:
I have pointed two major compulsory revisions on my first review that I have
considered important points in this manuscript of Parkash et al.
The authors disagreed and did not convinced me about their opinions.
The material is interesting and may be usefull for readers working in the tropics. I
would like that it could be published, but I am afraid that I am correct and the
paper has major problems.
I cannot agree with the publication except the manuscript was evaluated by an
epidemiologist in order to clarify my methodological query: I think that is a
longitudinal study (the authors analyzed it as a cohort study, with Cox regression
and hazard ratios) however the authors insist that it is a cross-sectional and state
it in the title, abstract and materials. If other referees think that I am wrong, the
paper will be free to be published.
I also recomend that other hepatologist should analyze the mauscript in order to
evaluate the decision of the authors of remaining to classify patients as "mild /
moderate / severe hepatitis" only by a isolated biochemical marker (ALT). I think
it would sound more "scientific" if the authors used terms such as
"necroinflamatory activity", "biochemical liver injury", "liver cell involvement", etc.
instead "hepatitis".
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Severity of acute hepatitis and its outcome in patients with dengue fever in
a tertiary care hospital Karachi, Pakistan (South Asia): An Analytic cross
sectional study.
Version: 2Date:26 November 2009
Reviewer: Fransisco Souto
Reviewer's report:
I have pointed two major compulsory revisions on my first review that I have
considered important points in this manuscript of Parkash et al.
The authors disagreed and did not convinced me about their opinions.
The material is interesting and may be usefull for readers working in the tropics. I
would like that it could be published, but I am afraid that I am correct and the
paper has major problems.
I cannot agree with the publication except the manuscript was evaluated by an
epidemiologist in order to clarify my methodological query: I think that is a
longitudinal study (the authors analyzed it as a cohort study, with Cox regression
and hazard ratios) however the authors insist that it is a cross-sectional and state
it in the title, abstract and materials. If other referees think that I am wrong, the
paper will be free to be published.
I also recomend that other hepatologist should analyze the mauscript in order to
evaluate the decision of the authors of remaining to classify patients as "mild /
moderate / severe hepatitis" only by a isolated biochemical marker (ALT). I think
it would sound more "scientific" if the authors used terms such as
"necroinflamatory activity", "biochemical liver injury", "liver cell involvement", etc.
instead "hepatitis".
Declaration of competing interests:
no competing interests
assistant