Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of the PRLHR, HSPA12A and Risk of Gastric Cancer,
Colorectal Cancer in the Chinese Han Population
Version:2Date:4 July 2015
Reviewer: Juozas Kupcinskas
Reviewer's report:
Su et al. present a case-control study, where they suggest that PRLHR and
HSPA12A SNPs might be linked with the risk of digestive cancers. The authors
present original data, that might be of interest for researchers working in the field;
however, certain issues need to be addressed that are discussed below.
Major compulsory revisions:
1) The language of the manuscript needs to be revised extensively by a person
proficient in English. There are multiple grammar errors throughout the
manuscript that need to be addressed before further consideration for
publication.
2) One of the major concerns is related to the choice of seven SNPs for
genotyping analysis. The authors discuss only HSPA12A and PRLHR genes;
however, their study included analysis of other 5 SNPs with no comment for their
choice at all. The authors should explain the strategy and rationale they used for
selecting all of the SNPs in this study.
3) My major concern is the statistical approach used in this paper that might
greatly influence the outcomes. I have strong doubts about the significance
thresholds (p<0.05) used by the authors in this paper. There are multiple
statistical comparisons shown in this paper; however, Bonferonni correction for
adjusting p-value is not applied. After adjusting p-values, I believe that none of
the associations reported by researchers retain required significance levels. This
should completely change the conclusions drawn the researchers and give a
more objective outlook of the results presented the researchers.
4) Introduction and discussion section are poorly structured and organized. The
authors should discuss their findings more cautiously regarding the limitations of
the statistical analysis that are outlined above.
Minor essential revisions:
1) Citation to support the statement is missing: page 3, ln 53
2) Please check p-values in Table 1. Gender proportions in gastric cancer group
and control group seem to be not equal.
3) The description of control subjects has to be clarified. Why were these patients
referred to the department of surgery? The authors should discuss the limitations
of not using population based control group.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of the PRLHR, HSPA12A and Risk of Gastric Cancer,
Colorectal Cancer in the Chinese Han Population
Version:2Date:4 July 2015
Reviewer: Juozas Kupcinskas
Reviewer's report:
Su et al. present a case-control study, where they suggest that PRLHR and
HSPA12A SNPs might be linked with the risk of digestive cancers. The authors
present original data, that might be of interest for researchers working in the field;
however, certain issues need to be addressed that are discussed below.
Major compulsory revisions:
1) The language of the manuscript needs to be revised extensively by a person
proficient in English. There are multiple grammar errors throughout the
manuscript that need to be addressed before further consideration for
publication.
2) One of the major concerns is related to the choice of seven SNPs for
genotyping analysis. The authors discuss only HSPA12A and PRLHR genes;
however, their study included analysis of other 5 SNPs with no comment for their
choice at all. The authors should explain the strategy and rationale they used for
selecting all of the SNPs in this study.
3) My major concern is the statistical approach used in this paper that might
greatly influence the outcomes. I have strong doubts about the significance
thresholds (p<0.05) used by the authors in this paper. There are multiple
statistical comparisons shown in this paper; however, Bonferonni correction for
adjusting p-value is not applied. After adjusting p-values, I believe that none of
the associations reported by researchers retain required significance levels. This
should completely change the conclusions drawn the researchers and give a
more objective outlook of the results presented the researchers.
4) Introduction and discussion section are poorly structured and organized. The
authors should discuss their findings more cautiously regarding the limitations of
the statistical analysis that are outlined above.
Minor essential revisions:
1) Citation to support the statement is missing: page 3, ln 53
2) Please check p-values in Table 1. Gender proportions in gastric cancer group
and control group seem to be not equal.
3) The description of control subjects has to be clarified. Why were these patients
referred to the department of surgery? The authors should discuss the limitations
of not using population based control group.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Polymorphisms of the PRLHR, HSPA12A and Risk of Gastric Cancer,
Colorectal Cancer in the Chinese Han Population
Version:2Date:4 July 2015
Reviewer: Juozas Kupcinskas
Reviewer's report:
Su et al. present a case-control study, where they suggest that PRLHR and
HSPA12A SNPs might be linked with the risk of digestive cancers. The authors
present original data, that might be of interest for researchers working in the field;
however, certain issues need to be addressed that are discussed below.
Major compulsory revisions:
1) The language of the manuscript needs to be revised extensively by a person
proficient in English. There are multiple grammar errors throughout the
manuscript that need to be addressed before further consideration for
publication.
2) One of the major concerns is related to the choice of seven SNPs for
genotyping analysis. The authors discuss only HSPA12A and PRLHR genes;
however, their study included analysis of other 5 SNPs with no comment for their
choice at all. The authors should explain the strategy and rationale they used for
selecting all of the SNPs in this study.
3) My major concern is the statistical approach used in this paper that might
greatly influence the outcomes. I have strong doubts about the significance
thresholds (p<0.05) used by the authors in this paper. There are multiple
statistical comparisons shown in this paper; however, Bonferonni correction for
adjusting p-value is not applied. After adjusting p-values, I believe that none of
the associations reported by researchers retain required significance levels. This
should completely change the conclusions drawn the researchers and give a
more objective outlook of the results presented the researchers.
4) Introduction and discussion section are poorly structured and organized. The
authors should discuss their findings more cautiously regarding the limitations of
the statistical analysis that are outlined above.
Minor essential revisions:
1) Citation to support the statement is missing: page 3, ln 53
2) Please check p-values in Table 1. Gender proportions in gastric cancer group
and control group seem to be not equal.
3) The description of control subjects has to be clarified. Why were these patients
referred to the department of surgery? The authors should discuss the limitations
of not using population based control group.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant