Reviewer's report
Title:A survey of functional dyspepsia using Rome III criteria among Malay
subjects attending primary care clinic in an area with low prevalence for
Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:19 February 2013
Reviewer: Young-Tae Bak
Reviewer's report:
Authors surveyed the status of FD among Malays with an officially and properly
translated Malay version of the Rome III questionnaire. All process looked quite
reliable and this report shows us the status of FD among local Malays with very
low H. pylori infection.
Several minor points need to be answered and discussed accordingly.
1. “Of those married subjects, females were more likely to have FD and
psychosocial symptoms than men (6.3% vs. 0.6%), P = 0.05.” P=0.05 does not
mean a significant difference. P value should be LESS than 0.05 to be
significant.
2. 10% of the subjects had FD. Can this be expressed as “common”?
3. Expressions like “more common than previously expected” or so may be
better.
4. The word “satiation” is used instead of “satiety” in Rome III.
5. Diagnosis of H. pylori infection was based on CLO and/or histologic
examination of mucosal biopsy specimen from body and/or antrum. Results from
one specimen may be different from those from two specimens. All H. pylori tests
should have been done with specimens from two sites to ensure the proper
reliability of the results.
6. What will you say if a patient has H. pylori infection with symptoms compatible
with FD? Will you exclude the case from FD? This point need to be discussed.
7. Multivariable logistic regression is usually done using those variables which
are shown to be significant from univariable regression. According to the
description, this study used all variables in multivariable analysis regardless of
their significance from univariable analysis.
8. “The married females with FD commonly reported EPS rather than overlap
between EPS and PDS (7 vs. 3 subjects).” Was this a significant difference from
other patients? It seems NOT.
9. “In the current study, patients with FD had significantly greater BMI than those
patients without FD.” Higher BMI was significant only from univariable analysis
and not from multivariable analysis. Therefore, it might not have a clinical
significance.
10. Several mistypings are noted and need to be corrected.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
NA
Reviewer's report
Title:A survey of functional dyspepsia using Rome III criteria among Malay
subjects attending primary care clinic in an area with low prevalence for
Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:19 February 2013
Reviewer: Young-Tae Bak
Reviewer's report:
Authors surveyed the status of FD among Malays with an officially and properly
translated Malay version of the Rome III questionnaire. All process looked quite
reliable and this report shows us the status of FD among local Malays with very
low H. pylori infection.
Several minor points need to be answered and discussed accordingly.
1. “Of those married subjects, females were more likely to have FD and
psychosocial symptoms than men (6.3% vs. 0.6%), P = 0.05.” P=0.05 does not
mean a significant difference. P value should be LESS than 0.05 to be
significant.
2. 10% of the subjects had FD. Can this be expressed as “common”?
3. Expressions like “more common than previously expected” or so may be
better.
4. The word “satiation” is used instead of “satiety” in Rome III.
5. Diagnosis of H. pylori infection was based on CLO and/or histologic
examination of mucosal biopsy specimen from body and/or antrum. Results from
one specimen may be different from those from two specimens. All H. pylori tests
should have been done with specimens from two sites to ensure the proper
reliability of the results.
6. What will you say if a patient has H. pylori infection with symptoms compatible
with FD? Will you exclude the case from FD? This point need to be discussed.
7. Multivariable logistic regression is usually done using those variables which
are shown to be significant from univariable regression. According to the
description, this study used all variables in multivariable analysis regardless of
their significance from univariable analysis.
8. “The married females with FD commonly reported EPS rather than overlap
between EPS and PDS (7 vs. 3 subjects).” Was this a significant difference from
other patients? It seems NOT.
9. “In the current study, patients with FD had significantly greater BMI than those
patients without FD.” Higher BMI was significant only from univariable analysis
and not from multivariable analysis. Therefore, it might not have a clinical
significance.
10. Several mistypings are noted and need to be corrected.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
NA
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A survey of functional dyspepsia using Rome III criteria among Malay
subjects attending primary care clinic in an area with low prevalence for
Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:19 February 2013
Reviewer: Young-Tae Bak
Reviewer's report:
Authors surveyed the status of FD among Malays with an officially and properly
translated Malay version of the Rome III questionnaire. All process looked quite
reliable and this report shows us the status of FD among local Malays with very
low H. pylori infection.
Several minor points need to be answered and discussed accordingly.
1. “Of those married subjects, females were more likely to have FD and
psychosocial symptoms than men (6.3% vs. 0.6%), P = 0.05.” P=0.05 does not
mean a significant difference. P value should be LESS than 0.05 to be
significant.
2. 10% of the subjects had FD. Can this be expressed as “common”?
3. Expressions like “more common than previously expected” or so may be
better.
4. The word “satiation” is used instead of “satiety” in Rome III.
5. Diagnosis of H. pylori infection was based on CLO and/or histologic
examination of mucosal biopsy specimen from body and/or antrum. Results from
one specimen may be different from those from two specimens. All H. pylori tests
should have been done with specimens from two sites to ensure the proper
reliability of the results.
6. What will you say if a patient has H. pylori infection with symptoms compatible
with FD? Will you exclude the case from FD? This point need to be discussed.
7. Multivariable logistic regression is usually done using those variables which
are shown to be significant from univariable regression. According to the
description, this study used all variables in multivariable analysis regardless of
their significance from univariable analysis.
8. “The married females with FD commonly reported EPS rather than overlap
between EPS and PDS (7 vs. 3 subjects).” Was this a significant difference from
other patients? It seems NOT.
9. “In the current study, patients with FD had significantly greater BMI than those
patients without FD.” Higher BMI was significant only from univariable analysis
and not from multivariable analysis. Therefore, it might not have a clinical
significance.
10. Several mistypings are noted and need to be corrected.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
NA
assistant