Reviewer's report
Title:Limited utilization of serologic testing in patients undergoing duodenal
biopsy for celiac disease
Version: 2Date:27 May 2013
Reviewer: Peter Green
Reviewer's report:
Major point that needs to be addressed is the failure to review and of the
pathology slides.
The ABSTRACT is misleading as only pathology reports were reviewed
We need a CONSORT flow chart of the number of patients/biopsies selected and
reviewed
Were any of the patients tested prior to being seen at the Cleveland Clinic. If this
is not known then we need that as a limitation of the study.
Why were only 161 charts reviewed? We need a chart to demonstrate where
patients were included/excluded in this study as requested above.
How was the celiac group different from the PVA-IEL group. Surely many of
these patients had celiac disease? PVA-IEL would be a Marsh IIIa celiac
classification.
How many biopsies were taken (biopsy pieces) in each group. Both according to
wheteher serologies were performed and according to diagnoses.
How many subjects had duodenal bu;lb biopsies taken? In how many were the
diagnosis made only in the bulb biopsies?
How many of the original biopsies were reviewed by the investigators?
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 have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Limited utilization of serologic testing in patients undergoing duodenal
biopsy for celiac disease
Version: 2Date:27 May 2013
Reviewer: Peter Green
Reviewer's report:
Major point that needs to be addressed is the failure to review and of the
pathology slides.
The ABSTRACT is misleading as only pathology reports were reviewed
We need a CONSORT flow chart of the number of patients/biopsies selected and
reviewed
Were any of the patients tested prior to being seen at the Cleveland Clinic. If this
is not known then we need that as a limitation of the study.
Why were only 161 charts reviewed? We need a chart to demonstrate where
patients were included/excluded in this study as requested above.
How was the celiac group different from the PVA-IEL group. Surely many of
these patients had celiac disease? PVA-IEL would be a Marsh IIIa celiac
classification.
How many biopsies were taken (biopsy pieces) in each group. Both according to
wheteher serologies were performed and according to diagnoses.
How many subjects had duodenal bu;lb biopsies taken? In how many were the
diagnosis made only in the bulb biopsies?
How many of the original biopsies were reviewed by the investigators?
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 have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Limited utilization of serologic testing in patients undergoing duodenal
biopsy for celiac disease
Version: 2Date:27 May 2013
Reviewer: Peter Green
Reviewer's report:
Major point that needs to be addressed is the failure to review and of the
pathology slides.
The ABSTRACT is misleading as only pathology reports were reviewed
We need a CONSORT flow chart of the number of patients/biopsies selected and
reviewed
Were any of the patients tested prior to being seen at the Cleveland Clinic. If this
is not known then we need that as a limitation of the study.
Why were only 161 charts reviewed? We need a chart to demonstrate where
patients were included/excluded in this study as requested above.
How was the celiac group different from the PVA-IEL group. Surely many of
these patients had celiac disease? PVA-IEL would be a Marsh IIIa celiac
classification.
How many biopsies were taken (biopsy pieces) in each group. Both according to
wheteher serologies were performed and according to diagnoses.
How many subjects had duodenal bu;lb biopsies taken? In how many were the
diagnosis made only in the bulb biopsies?
How many of the original biopsies were reviewed by the investigators?
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 have no competing interests
assistant