Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in different patient groups using
the visual analogue scale for irritable bowel syndrome (VAS-IBS)
Version: 2Date:17 September 2011
Reviewer: Gabrio Bassotti
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated GI symptoms in different pathologic groups by means of a
VAS scale they proposed and validated, to see whether it is possible to
discriminate between groups on a symptom basis. My comments are detailed
below.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. Introduction. I do not feel that it is difficult to distinguish, even on clinical
grounds, between IBS, ED, and CIPO. The last condition, in particular, displays
such peculiar features that it is often seen by surgeons…besides, what is the
difference between ED and CIPO? Please specify here.
2. Materials and Methods. Controls. Using medical staff samples as controls
might not be a good idea, in that these are subjects biased toward a greater
attention toward medical details. I suggest the authors use a more appropriate
control group (e.g., random sample from general population).
3. Materials and Methods. Patients with dysmotility disorders. Recruitment of
these patients seems to have been done retrospectively, since subjects were
included undergoing laparoscopy in the last 10 years. Again, the difference
between ED and CIPO as presented here by the authors is not convincing.
4. Materials and Methods. As a further group, the authors chose patients with
pSS. Again, I wonder whether these subjects are appropriate. To test their
hypothesis, the authors should compare IBS patients with more appropriate
patients groups, such as fibromyalgia patients, celiac disease patients, and
patients with food allergy/intolerance.
5. Again, concerning recruitment, it appears that the authors were aware “a
priori” of the patients’ diagnoses, introducing a further bias. A more appropriate
way of conducting such a study would have been to administer the scale in a
prospective manner, during an established period of time, to all patients
evaluated for suspected functional GI disorders.
6. The scale was not administered in the same manner to all subjects
participating to the study.
7. Results. It is not surprising that pSS patients had less GI complaints that GI
disorders; things could probably be different if scleroderma patients were
selected, in whom GI involvement is often present and important.
8. The conclusions are misleading; on these basis the VAS score seems of no
utility in this setting.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in different patient groups using
the visual analogue scale for irritable bowel syndrome (VAS-IBS)
Version: 2Date:17 September 2011
Reviewer: Gabrio Bassotti
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated GI symptoms in different pathologic groups by means of a
VAS scale they proposed and validated, to see whether it is possible to
discriminate between groups on a symptom basis. My comments are detailed
below.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. Introduction. I do not feel that it is difficult to distinguish, even on clinical
grounds, between IBS, ED, and CIPO. The last condition, in particular, displays
such peculiar features that it is often seen by surgeons…besides, what is the
difference between ED and CIPO? Please specify here.
2. Materials and Methods. Controls. Using medical staff samples as controls
might not be a good idea, in that these are subjects biased toward a greater
attention toward medical details. I suggest the authors use a more appropriate
control group (e.g., random sample from general population).
3. Materials and Methods. Patients with dysmotility disorders. Recruitment of
these patients seems to have been done retrospectively, since subjects were
included undergoing laparoscopy in the last 10 years. Again, the difference
between ED and CIPO as presented here by the authors is not convincing.
4. Materials and Methods. As a further group, the authors chose patients with
pSS. Again, I wonder whether these subjects are appropriate. To test their
hypothesis, the authors should compare IBS patients with more appropriate
patients groups, such as fibromyalgia patients, celiac disease patients, and
patients with food allergy/intolerance.
5. Again, concerning recruitment, it appears that the authors were aware “a
priori” of the patients’ diagnoses, introducing a further bias. A more appropriate
way of conducting such a study would have been to administer the scale in a
prospective manner, during an established period of time, to all patients
evaluated for suspected functional GI disorders.
6. The scale was not administered in the same manner to all subjects
participating to the study.
7. Results. It is not surprising that pSS patients had less GI complaints that GI
disorders; things could probably be different if scleroderma patients were
selected, in whom GI involvement is often present and important.
8. The conclusions are misleading; on these basis the VAS score seems of no
utility in this setting.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in different patient groups using
the visual analogue scale for irritable bowel syndrome (VAS-IBS)
Version: 2Date:17 September 2011
Reviewer: Gabrio Bassotti
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated GI symptoms in different pathologic groups by means of a
VAS scale they proposed and validated, to see whether it is possible to
discriminate between groups on a symptom basis. My comments are detailed
below.
MAJOR COMPULSORY REVISIONS
1. Introduction. I do not feel that it is difficult to distinguish, even on clinical
grounds, between IBS, ED, and CIPO. The last condition, in particular, displays
such peculiar features that it is often seen by surgeons…besides, what is the
difference between ED and CIPO? Please specify here.
2. Materials and Methods. Controls. Using medical staff samples as controls
might not be a good idea, in that these are subjects biased toward a greater
attention toward medical details. I suggest the authors use a more appropriate
control group (e.g., random sample from general population).
3. Materials and Methods. Patients with dysmotility disorders. Recruitment of
these patients seems to have been done retrospectively, since subjects were
included undergoing laparoscopy in the last 10 years. Again, the difference
between ED and CIPO as presented here by the authors is not convincing.
4. Materials and Methods. As a further group, the authors chose patients with
pSS. Again, I wonder whether these subjects are appropriate. To test their
hypothesis, the authors should compare IBS patients with more appropriate
patients groups, such as fibromyalgia patients, celiac disease patients, and
patients with food allergy/intolerance.
5. Again, concerning recruitment, it appears that the authors were aware “a
priori” of the patients’ diagnoses, introducing a further bias. A more appropriate
way of conducting such a study would have been to administer the scale in a
prospective manner, during an established period of time, to all patients
evaluated for suspected functional GI disorders.
6. The scale was not administered in the same manner to all subjects
participating to the study.
7. Results. It is not surprising that pSS patients had less GI complaints that GI
disorders; things could probably be different if scleroderma patients were
selected, in whom GI involvement is often present and important.
8. The conclusions are misleading; on these basis the VAS score seems of no
utility in this setting.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant