Reviewer's report
Title:The MLH1 2101C>A (Q701K) variation is related to risk of gastric cancer in
Chinese males
Version: 2Date:25 February 2011
Reviewer: TL Chan
Reviewer's report:
Can the authors clarify the loss of clinical classification of the 74 cases? It is not
align with the statement in method and materials that the cancers were reviewed
by histological method. It is more appropriate that the author should avoid using
the term "marginally significant/associated". "A trend was observed" is more
appropriate. Overall, the authors have already addressed all questions.
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The MLH1 2101C>A (Q701K) variation is related to risk of gastric cancer in
Chinese males
Version: 2Date:25 February 2011
Reviewer: TL Chan
Reviewer's report:
Can the authors clarify the loss of clinical classification of the 74 cases? It is not
align with the statement in method and materials that the cancers were reviewed
by histological method. It is more appropriate that the author should avoid using
the term "marginally significant/associated". "A trend was observed" is more
appropriate. Overall, the authors have already addressed all questions.
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The MLH1 2101C>A (Q701K) variation is related to risk of gastric cancer in
Chinese males
Version: 2Date:25 February 2011
Reviewer: TL Chan
Reviewer's report:
Can the authors clarify the loss of clinical classification of the 74 cases? It is not
align with the statement in method and materials that the cancers were reviewed
by histological method. It is more appropriate that the author should avoid using
the term "marginally significant/associated". "A trend was observed" is more
appropriate. Overall, the authors have already addressed all questions.
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: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant