Reviewer's report
Title:Nationwide Epidemiological Study of Severe Gallstone Disease in Taiwan
Version: 1Date:23 March 2009
Reviewer: Wolfgang Kratzer
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The issue on the incidence of biliary complications in symptomatic
cholecystolithiasis addressed by Huang et al. is of high importance in today’s
health care policy, primarily in regards to increasing hypercaloric nutrition and
obesity.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The data analysis conducted by the authors and the management of data are
adequate and described in detail.
3. Are the data sound?
The data are sound.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
The study presented by the authors complies with international standards and
the data evaluation is well comprehensible.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The conclusions drawn by the authors are consistent with the results described
and show an increase of complicated gall stone diseases particularly in the
younger age groups.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
The limitations addressed by the authors themselves describe the problems of
the study satisfactorily and explicitly point out the questions that could not be
answered, such as the localisation and the composition of the gall stones.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title of the study as well as the abstract reflect the most important aspects
that were obtained during the study.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Please make your review as constructive and detailed as possible in your
comments so that authors have the opportunity to overcome any serious
deficiencies that you find and please also divide your comments into the following
categories:
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
After minor but necessary revisions have been made the study can be accepted
for publication.
In detail the following revisions should be made:
Fig.3 The caption must be altered and the results for both men and women
should be easily recognizable.
Discussion:
The first paragraph of the discussion should be deleted as it once again includes
a repetition of the most important results.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Nationwide Epidemiological Study of Severe Gallstone Disease in Taiwan
Version: 1Date:23 March 2009
Reviewer: Wolfgang Kratzer
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The issue on the incidence of biliary complications in symptomatic
cholecystolithiasis addressed by Huang et al. is of high importance in today’s
health care policy, primarily in regards to increasing hypercaloric nutrition and
obesity.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The data analysis conducted by the authors and the management of data are
adequate and described in detail.
3. Are the data sound?
The data are sound.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
The study presented by the authors complies with international standards and
the data evaluation is well comprehensible.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The conclusions drawn by the authors are consistent with the results described
and show an increase of complicated gall stone diseases particularly in the
younger age groups.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
The limitations addressed by the authors themselves describe the problems of
the study satisfactorily and explicitly point out the questions that could not be
answered, such as the localisation and the composition of the gall stones.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title of the study as well as the abstract reflect the most important aspects
that were obtained during the study.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Please make your review as constructive and detailed as possible in your
comments so that authors have the opportunity to overcome any serious
deficiencies that you find and please also divide your comments into the following
categories:
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
After minor but necessary revisions have been made the study can be accepted
for publication.
In detail the following revisions should be made:
Fig.3 The caption must be altered and the results for both men and women
should be easily recognizable.
Discussion:
The first paragraph of the discussion should be deleted as it once again includes
a repetition of the most important results.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Nationwide Epidemiological Study of Severe Gallstone Disease in Taiwan
Version: 1Date:23 March 2009
Reviewer: Wolfgang Kratzer
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The issue on the incidence of biliary complications in symptomatic
cholecystolithiasis addressed by Huang et al. is of high importance in today’s
health care policy, primarily in regards to increasing hypercaloric nutrition and
obesity.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The data analysis conducted by the authors and the management of data are
adequate and described in detail.
3. Are the data sound?
The data are sound.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
The study presented by the authors complies with international standards and
the data evaluation is well comprehensible.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The conclusions drawn by the authors are consistent with the results described
and show an increase of complicated gall stone diseases particularly in the
younger age groups.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
The limitations addressed by the authors themselves describe the problems of
the study satisfactorily and explicitly point out the questions that could not be
answered, such as the localisation and the composition of the gall stones.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
The title of the study as well as the abstract reflect the most important aspects
that were obtained during the study.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes
Please make your review as constructive and detailed as possible in your
comments so that authors have the opportunity to overcome any serious
deficiencies that you find and please also divide your comments into the following
categories:
• Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use
of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
After minor but necessary revisions have been made the study can be accepted
for publication.
In detail the following revisions should be made:
Fig.3 The caption must be altered and the results for both men and women
should be easily recognizable.
Discussion:
The first paragraph of the discussion should be deleted as it once again includes
a repetition of the most important results.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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