Reviewer's report
Title:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:17 November 2007
Reviewer: Noel Bairey Merz
Reviewer's report:
General
This manuscript addresses a topic of relevance that is increasingly being
recognized clinically (challenges in symptom recognition) using a novel approach
(prognosis following normal upper GI endoscopy). The strengths are the long
term followup with relatively complete data. The weaknesses are aspects of data
inclusion, questions regarding physician blinding, and questions about data
analyses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. The nonspecific symptom patients were excluded from analyses. What are the
results if they are included? Were the symptom type inclusion fit to demonstrate
findings, and if so, this should be expressed as a limitation, and/or the model
should be tested in a second cohort.
2. Were the physician's involved in the interpretation of the cases and symptoms
blinded to the study analyses and results?
3. Clarify what aspects of arteriosclerosis processes that were separate from the
IHD covered.
4. Symptom recognition may be different between women and men. It would be
of interest to analyze the results by sex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:17 November 2007
Reviewer: Noel Bairey Merz
Reviewer's report:
General
This manuscript addresses a topic of relevance that is increasingly being
recognized clinically (challenges in symptom recognition) using a novel approach
(prognosis following normal upper GI endoscopy). The strengths are the long
term followup with relatively complete data. The weaknesses are aspects of data
inclusion, questions regarding physician blinding, and questions about data
analyses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. The nonspecific symptom patients were excluded from analyses. What are the
results if they are included? Were the symptom type inclusion fit to demonstrate
findings, and if so, this should be expressed as a limitation, and/or the model
should be tested in a second cohort.
2. Were the physician's involved in the interpretation of the cases and symptoms
blinded to the study analyses and results?
3. Clarify what aspects of arteriosclerosis processes that were separate from the
IHD covered.
4. Symptom recognition may be different between women and men. It would be
of interest to analyze the results by sex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Unexplained Chest/Epigastric Pain in Patients with Normal Endoscopy as a
Predictor for Ischemic Heart Disease and Mortality: A Danish 10-Year Cohort
Study
Version: 3Date:17 November 2007
Reviewer: Noel Bairey Merz
Reviewer's report:
General
This manuscript addresses a topic of relevance that is increasingly being
recognized clinically (challenges in symptom recognition) using a novel approach
(prognosis following normal upper GI endoscopy). The strengths are the long
term followup with relatively complete data. The weaknesses are aspects of data
inclusion, questions regarding physician blinding, and questions about data
analyses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
1. The nonspecific symptom patients were excluded from analyses. What are the
results if they are included? Were the symptom type inclusion fit to demonstrate
findings, and if so, this should be expressed as a limitation, and/or the model
should be tested in a second cohort.
2. Were the physician's involved in the interpretation of the cases and symptoms
blinded to the study analyses and results?
3. Clarify what aspects of arteriosclerosis processes that were separate from the
IHD covered.
4. Symptom recognition may be different between women and men. It would be
of interest to analyze the results by sex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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