Reviewer's report
Title:Outcome of index upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients presenting
with dysphagia in a tertiary care hospital-A 10 years review.
Version: 2Date:8 October 2007
Reviewer: C. Mel Wilcox
Reviewer's report:
General
I re-reviewed the paper and the revisions of the author. I have several additional
queries which should be addressed:
1. You state in response to my prior query “The definition of dysphagia was
similar amongst the investigators”. This suggests that when your study was
started, there was a unified definition of dysphagia.
2. Several p values are given throughout the text yet there is no discussion of
what statistical methodologies were used.
3. There are several spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Outcome of index upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients presenting
with dysphagia in a tertiary care hospital-A 10 years review.
Version: 2Date:8 October 2007
Reviewer: C. Mel Wilcox
Reviewer's report:
General
I re-reviewed the paper and the revisions of the author. I have several additional
queries which should be addressed:
1. You state in response to my prior query “The definition of dysphagia was
similar amongst the investigators”. This suggests that when your study was
started, there was a unified definition of dysphagia.
2. Several p values are given throughout the text yet there is no discussion of
what statistical methodologies were used.
3. There are several spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Outcome of index upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients presenting
with dysphagia in a tertiary care hospital-A 10 years review.
Version: 2Date:8 October 2007
Reviewer: C. Mel Wilcox
Reviewer's report:
General
I re-reviewed the paper and the revisions of the author. I have several additional
queries which should be addressed:
1. You state in response to my prior query “The definition of dysphagia was
similar amongst the investigators”. This suggests that when your study was
started, there was a unified definition of dysphagia.
2. Several p values are given throughout the text yet there is no discussion of
what statistical methodologies were used.
3. There are several spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?: Accept after minor essential revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
assistant