Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori species in patients presenting with
dyspepsia
Version: 3Date:26 August 2011
Reviewer: Mark Whary
Reviewer's report:
Major issues include 1) needs editing for English and organization - redundant
data, paragraphs poorly organized 2) association with pets is questionable - p
value of 0.05 for H. heilmanii infection appears to be a negative association since
most Hh positive patients did not have pet contact. 3) Numbers in Table 3 are
different than reported in text. 4)prior review requests were not adequately
addressed
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori species in patients presenting with
dyspepsia
Version: 3Date:26 August 2011
Reviewer: Mark Whary
Reviewer's report:
Major issues include 1) needs editing for English and organization - redundant
data, paragraphs poorly organized 2) association with pets is questionable - p
value of 0.05 for H. heilmanii infection appears to be a negative association since
most Hh positive patients did not have pet contact. 3) Numbers in Table 3 are
different than reported in text. 4)prior review requests were not adequately
addressed
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori species in patients presenting with
dyspepsia
Version: 3Date:26 August 2011
Reviewer: Mark Whary
Reviewer's report:
Major issues include 1) needs editing for English and organization - redundant
data, paragraphs poorly organized 2) association with pets is questionable - p
value of 0.05 for H. heilmanii infection appears to be a negative association since
most Hh positive patients did not have pet contact. 3) Numbers in Table 3 are
different than reported in text. 4)prior review requests were not adequately
addressed
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
assistant