Reviewer's report
Title:Hospital-based, prospective, multicentre surveillance to determine the
incidence of intussusception in children aged < 15 years in Germany
Version: 1Date:10 November 2010
Reviewer: Mahomed Patel
Reviewer's report:
This paper offers an interesting statistical technique to incorporate
under-reporting of intussusception in estimating disease incidence and has a
sound rationale. Its focus is primarily for validating the technique. However, I do
not have the appropriate statistical expertise required to comment on the
appropriateness of using the model in this context.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The epidemiological techniques are appropriate, but I do not have the required
expertise to comment on the statistical methods.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The epidemiological aspects are described adequately.
Minor essential revision: An alternative method to assess under-reporting cited
by the authors is the capture-recapture technique. It would be helpful to describe
the relative merits of the two techniques.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
Minor essential revision: It would be useful if the authors would (a) comment on
the validity of the ICD codes for identifying all cases with IS at the hospitals (e.g.
the quality assurance methods used to assess validity of the codes in identifying
all cases with IS); and (b) provide some indicators on the quality of the ESPED
data (e.g. peer-reviewed publications of the data or evidence of the quality and
usefulness of the system).
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both published and unpublished?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?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
It is acceptable, but some sentences need further editing to simplify the message
e.g. second sentence under the ‘Background’ of the Abstract.
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:Hospital-based, prospective, multicentre surveillance to determine the
incidence of intussusception in children aged < 15 years in Germany
Version: 1Date:10 November 2010
Reviewer: Mahomed Patel
Reviewer's report:
This paper offers an interesting statistical technique to incorporate
under-reporting of intussusception in estimating disease incidence and has a
sound rationale. Its focus is primarily for validating the technique. However, I do
not have the appropriate statistical expertise required to comment on the
appropriateness of using the model in this context.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The epidemiological techniques are appropriate, but I do not have the required
expertise to comment on the statistical methods.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The epidemiological aspects are described adequately.
Minor essential revision: An alternative method to assess under-reporting cited
by the authors is the capture-recapture technique. It would be helpful to describe
the relative merits of the two techniques.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
Minor essential revision: It would be useful if the authors would (a) comment on
the validity of the ICD codes for identifying all cases with IS at the hospitals (e.g.
the quality assurance methods used to assess validity of the codes in identifying
all cases with IS); and (b) provide some indicators on the quality of the ESPED
data (e.g. peer-reviewed publications of the data or evidence of the quality and
usefulness of the system).
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?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
It is acceptable, but some sentences need further editing to simplify the message
e.g. second sentence under the ‘Background’ of the Abstract.
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:Hospital-based, prospective, multicentre surveillance to determine the
incidence of intussusception in children aged < 15 years in Germany
Version: 1Date:10 November 2010
Reviewer: Mahomed Patel
Reviewer's report:
This paper offers an interesting statistical technique to incorporate
under-reporting of intussusception in estimating disease incidence and has a
sound rationale. Its focus is primarily for validating the technique. However, I do
not have the appropriate statistical expertise required to comment on the
appropriateness of using the model in this context.
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
Yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The epidemiological techniques are appropriate, but I do not have the required
expertise to comment on the statistical methods.
3. Are the data sound?
Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
The epidemiological aspects are described adequately.
Minor essential revision: An alternative method to assess under-reporting cited
by the authors is the capture-recapture technique. It would be helpful to describe
the relative merits of the two techniques.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
Yes.
Minor essential revision: It would be useful if the authors would (a) comment on
the validity of the ICD codes for identifying all cases with IS at the hospitals (e.g.
the quality assurance methods used to assess validity of the codes in identifying
all cases with IS); and (b) provide some indicators on the quality of the ESPED
data (e.g. peer-reviewed publications of the data or evidence of the quality and
usefulness of the system).
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?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
It is acceptable, but some sentences need further editing to simplify the message
e.g. second sentence under the ‘Background’ of the Abstract.
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