Reviewer's report
Title:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:1Date:22 December 2013
Reviewer: Shailender Singh
Reviewer's report:
1. Minor essential Revisions: In the abstract the number of EGD is 142. However,
in the manuscript result section EGD was performed in 149 patients.
2. Even though the rate of inappropriate colonoscopies in this study was lower
than others, the overall prevalence of finding significant lesion was also lower
than some of the other published studies. e.g. in colonoscopy overall prevalence
of lesion was 21%, quite low as compared to up to 40% published in the
literature. Authors may want to comment on this in the discussion, and
explanation if possible.
3. On page 14: Using EPAGE criteria in conjunction with fecal calprotectin testing
increased diagnostic yield (56.8% for EGD; 70.2% for colonoscopy) compared to
EPAGE criteria (32.5% and 46.3% respectively,.....
however, earlier in the diagnostic yield it is mentioned that yield for colonoscopy
per EPAGE alone was 23.6% (?? not 46.3% for colonoscopy)
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:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:1Date:22 December 2013
Reviewer: Shailender Singh
Reviewer's report:
1. Minor essential Revisions: In the abstract the number of EGD is 142. However,
in the manuscript result section EGD was performed in 149 patients.
2. Even though the rate of inappropriate colonoscopies in this study was lower
than others, the overall prevalence of finding significant lesion was also lower
than some of the other published studies. e.g. in colonoscopy overall prevalence
of lesion was 21%, quite low as compared to up to 40% published in the
literature. Authors may want to comment on this in the discussion, and
explanation if possible.
3. On page 14: Using EPAGE criteria in conjunction with fecal calprotectin testing
increased diagnostic yield (56.8% for EGD; 70.2% for colonoscopy) compared to
EPAGE criteria (32.5% and 46.3% respectively,.....
however, earlier in the diagnostic yield it is mentioned that yield for colonoscopy
per EPAGE alone was 23.6% (?? not 46.3% for colonoscopy)
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:Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints:
Incremental value of fecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness
Version:1Date:22 December 2013
Reviewer: Shailender Singh
Reviewer's report:
1. Minor essential Revisions: In the abstract the number of EGD is 142. However,
in the manuscript result section EGD was performed in 149 patients.
2. Even though the rate of inappropriate colonoscopies in this study was lower
than others, the overall prevalence of finding significant lesion was also lower
than some of the other published studies. e.g. in colonoscopy overall prevalence
of lesion was 21%, quite low as compared to up to 40% published in the
literature. Authors may want to comment on this in the discussion, and
explanation if possible.
3. On page 14: Using EPAGE criteria in conjunction with fecal calprotectin testing
increased diagnostic yield (56.8% for EGD; 70.2% for colonoscopy) compared to
EPAGE criteria (32.5% and 46.3% respectively,.....
however, earlier in the diagnostic yield it is mentioned that yield for colonoscopy
per EPAGE alone was 23.6% (?? not 46.3% for colonoscopy)
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