Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Influence of HLA on clinical and analytical features of pediatric celiac disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Mohammad Rostami -Nejad  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Editor,  
Thank you very much for your invitation.  
I read the paper,it is interesting but need major revision as follow:  
 
Abstract : 
This section is vague; the method is incomplete, results are insufficient and conclusion does not 
support the result.  
Introduction:  
The author only describe the HLA haplotypes; any frequency? any previous similar studies? any 
sentence regarding the study  hypothesis?  
the authors may discuss the following article:  
Rostami -Nejad M, Romanos J, Rostami K, Ganji A, Ehsani -Ardakani MJ, Bakhshipour AR, 
Zojaji H, Mohebbi SR, Zali MR, Wijmenga C. Allele and haplotype frequencies for HLA -DQ in 
Iranian celiac disease  patients. World J Gastroenterol.  
2014 May 28;20(20):6302 -8. 
 
Method:  
My main confusing is regarding this section; how the study population selected? why and how 
the first degree relatives selected?  
According to the recent guidelines the diagnosis of patients under 2 years age is different as the 
anti-tTG has false positive result in this group of patients. So how the authors describe this?  
According to the following recent published article by Marsh et al., the sub -classification for 
Marsh 3 is not valuable any more, so the results should be re -analysed according to this study:  
 N Marsh M, W Johnson M, Rostami K. Mucosal histopathology in celiac disease: a rebuttal of 
Oberhuber's sub -division of Marsh  III. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2015 Spring;8(2):99 -
109. Review.   
 
Results:  
the authors classified the symptoms to classical and non -classical without any description in the 
method.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wh at is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declarat ion of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript,  either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any pat ents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing  interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
none  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any co mments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Influence of HLA on clinical and analytical features of pediatric celiac disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Mohammad Rostami -Nejad  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Editor,  
Thank you very much for your invitation.  
I read the paper,it is interesting but need major revision as follow:  
 
Abstract : 
This section is vague; the method is incomplete, results are insufficient and conclusion does not 
support the result.  
Introduction:  
The author only describe the HLA haplotypes; any frequency? any previous similar studies? any 
sentence regarding the study  hypothesis?  
the authors may discuss the following article:  
Rostami -Nejad M, Romanos J, Rostami K, Ganji A, Ehsani -Ardakani MJ, Bakhshipour AR, 
Zojaji H, Mohebbi SR, Zali MR, Wijmenga C. Allele and haplotype frequencies for HLA -DQ in 
Iranian celiac disease  patients. World J Gastroenterol.  
2014 May 28;20(20):6302 -8. 
 
Method:  
My main confusing is regarding this section; how the study population selected? why and how 
the first degree relatives selected?  
According to the recent guidelines the diagnosis of patients under 2 years age is different as the 
anti-tTG has false positive result in this group of patients. So how the authors describe this?  
According to the following recent published article by Marsh et al., the sub -classification for 
Marsh 3 is not valuable any more, so the results should be re -analysed according to this study:  
 N Marsh M, W Johnson M, Rostami K. Mucosal histopathology in celiac disease: a rebuttal of 
Oberhuber's sub -division of Marsh  III. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2015 Spring;8(2):99 -
109. Review.   
 
Results:  
the authors classified the symptoms to classical and non -classical without any description in the 
method.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wh at is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declarat ion of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript,  either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any pat ents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing  interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
none  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any co mments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Influence of HLA on clinical and analytical features of pediatric celiac disease  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Mohammad Rostami -Nejad  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Editor,  
Thank you very much for your invitation.  
I read the paper,it is interesting but need major revision as follow:  
 
Abstract : 
This section is vague; the method is incomplete, results are insufficient and conclusion does not 
support the result.  
Introduction:  
The author only describe the HLA haplotypes; any frequency? any previous similar studies? any 
sentence regarding the study  hypothesis?  
the authors may discuss the following article:  
Rostami -Nejad M, Romanos J, Rostami K, Ganji A, Ehsani -Ardakani MJ, Bakhshipour AR, 
Zojaji H, Mohebbi SR, Zali MR, Wijmenga C. Allele and haplotype frequencies for HLA -DQ in 
Iranian celiac disease  patients. World J Gastroenterol.  
2014 May 28;20(20):6302 -8. 
 
Method:  
My main confusing is regarding this section; how the study population selected? why and how 
the first degree relatives selected?  
According to the recent guidelines the diagnosis of patients under 2 years age is different as the 
anti-tTG has false positive result in this group of patients. So how the authors describe this?  
According to the following recent published article by Marsh et al., the sub -classification for 
Marsh 3 is not valuable any more, so the results should be re -analysed according to this study:  
 N Marsh M, W Johnson M, Rostami K. Mucosal histopathology in celiac disease: a rebuttal of 
Oberhuber's sub -division of Marsh  III. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2015 Spring;8(2):99 -
109. Review.   
 
Results:  
the authors classified the symptoms to classical and non -classical without any description in the 
method.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify wh at is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects requ ire further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declarat ion of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript,  either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any pat ents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing  interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
none  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any co mments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant