Reviewer's report
Title:High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux esophagitis in Chinese
patients with chronic liver diseases
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Jan Hatlebakk
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript is of interest, but raises some concerns which
1. I find the introduction and extensive discussion imprecise in wording and with
less focus on what the study is actually about. Both should be rewritten and the
extensive overlap should be corrected by taking out the first few sentences of the
introduction.
2. It is hard to accept that the symptoms of gERD were atypical, as is stated in
the discussion. Instead it is possible that the patients were asymptomatic from
GE, but suffered from other symptoms. What questionnaire was used to record
such atypical symptoms?
3. The classification of varices is uncommon, and no reference is given. I also
feel it is incorrect to change the exact wording of the LA classification of reflux
oesophagitis from what was originally published (even though it is likely to be a
correct interpretation).
4. I have problems adding up the number of patients in each subgroup. I am not
sure that using patients with acute hepatitis is an ideal control group, since their
digestive functions might be compromized. Can you have hepatitis E without
hepatitis B??
5. The detaiols of statistical analysis is not clear to me.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux esophagitis in Chinese
patients with chronic liver diseases
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Jan Hatlebakk
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript is of interest, but raises some concerns which
1. I find the introduction and extensive discussion imprecise in wording and with
less focus on what the study is actually about. Both should be rewritten and the
extensive overlap should be corrected by taking out the first few sentences of the
introduction.
2. It is hard to accept that the symptoms of gERD were atypical, as is stated in
the discussion. Instead it is possible that the patients were asymptomatic from
GE, but suffered from other symptoms. What questionnaire was used to record
such atypical symptoms?
3. The classification of varices is uncommon, and no reference is given. I also
feel it is incorrect to change the exact wording of the LA classification of reflux
oesophagitis from what was originally published (even though it is likely to be a
correct interpretation).
4. I have problems adding up the number of patients in each subgroup. I am not
sure that using patients with acute hepatitis is an ideal control group, since their
digestive functions might be compromized. Can you have hepatitis E without
hepatitis B??
5. The detaiols of statistical analysis is not clear to me.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:High prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux esophagitis in Chinese
patients with chronic liver diseases
Version: 1Date:22 January 2010
Reviewer: Jan Hatlebakk
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
The manuscript is of interest, but raises some concerns which
1. I find the introduction and extensive discussion imprecise in wording and with
less focus on what the study is actually about. Both should be rewritten and the
extensive overlap should be corrected by taking out the first few sentences of the
introduction.
2. It is hard to accept that the symptoms of gERD were atypical, as is stated in
the discussion. Instead it is possible that the patients were asymptomatic from
GE, but suffered from other symptoms. What questionnaire was used to record
such atypical symptoms?
3. The classification of varices is uncommon, and no reference is given. I also
feel it is incorrect to change the exact wording of the LA classification of reflux
oesophagitis from what was originally published (even though it is likely to be a
correct interpretation).
4. I have problems adding up the number of patients in each subgroup. I am not
sure that using patients with acute hepatitis is an ideal control group, since their
digestive functions might be compromized. Can you have hepatitis E without
hepatitis B??
5. The detaiols of statistical analysis is not clear to me.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare I have no competing interests.
assistant