Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:10 May 2013
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
This is a straight forward study that evaluates upper GI endoscopy for
investigating dyspepsia in a developing country.
Minor essential revisions:
1. Background: There is a conceptual problem in the last paragraph. The test and
treat strategy for dyspepsia is clinically suitable and cost-effective for regions with
high prevalence of H pylori (see PMID: 17608775 and Maastricht IV). The
strategy is not feasible in low prevalence countries, where the low positive
predictive value of serology precludes it. Therefore, the sentence should be
corrected.
2. Methods. A reference should be provided for the alarm symptoms in the
second paragraph. There are several definitions of alarm symptoms. Ref 16
(cited in Background), for instance, includes persistent vomiting,
lymphadenophaty and family history of upper GI cancer. The authors chose a
more strict definition, and it should be cited the rationale for that.
3. Methods and Discussion. The cross cultural validation of the LDQ should be
cited. If not available, it should be also cited in Discussion (an important
limitation).
4. Results. The aim of the study is “to assess the diagnostic yield of EGD “. So,
patients without an EGD should be excluded (therefore, all tables with 292
patients).
5. Results. Also, there were 306 eligible, but only 282 were included. 24 patients
were lost (< 8%, a pretty reasonable rate), and the reasons should be described.
Discretionary revisions:
1. Methods. First line of methods “... which provides open-access endoscopy. “ (if
it still provides open-access endoscopy, if not “which used to provide”), without
the phrase defining open-access endoscopy (redundant) (delete “that did not
require referral to specialists first.”.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:10 May 2013
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
This is a straight forward study that evaluates upper GI endoscopy for
investigating dyspepsia in a developing country.
Minor essential revisions:
1. Background: There is a conceptual problem in the last paragraph. The test and
treat strategy for dyspepsia is clinically suitable and cost-effective for regions with
high prevalence of H pylori (see PMID: 17608775 and Maastricht IV). The
strategy is not feasible in low prevalence countries, where the low positive
predictive value of serology precludes it. Therefore, the sentence should be
corrected.
2. Methods. A reference should be provided for the alarm symptoms in the
second paragraph. There are several definitions of alarm symptoms. Ref 16
(cited in Background), for instance, includes persistent vomiting,
lymphadenophaty and family history of upper GI cancer. The authors chose a
more strict definition, and it should be cited the rationale for that.
3. Methods and Discussion. The cross cultural validation of the LDQ should be
cited. If not available, it should be also cited in Discussion (an important
limitation).
4. Results. The aim of the study is “to assess the diagnostic yield of EGD “. So,
patients without an EGD should be excluded (therefore, all tables with 292
patients).
5. Results. Also, there were 306 eligible, but only 282 were included. 24 patients
were lost (< 8%, a pretty reasonable rate), and the reasons should be described.
Discretionary revisions:
1. Methods. First line of methods “... which provides open-access endoscopy. “ (if
it still provides open-access endoscopy, if not “which used to provide”), without
the phrase defining open-access endoscopy (redundant) (delete “that did not
require referral to specialists first.”.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:10 May 2013
Reviewer: Rodrigo Machado
Reviewer's report:
This is a straight forward study that evaluates upper GI endoscopy for
investigating dyspepsia in a developing country.
Minor essential revisions:
1. Background: There is a conceptual problem in the last paragraph. The test and
treat strategy for dyspepsia is clinically suitable and cost-effective for regions with
high prevalence of H pylori (see PMID: 17608775 and Maastricht IV). The
strategy is not feasible in low prevalence countries, where the low positive
predictive value of serology precludes it. Therefore, the sentence should be
corrected.
2. Methods. A reference should be provided for the alarm symptoms in the
second paragraph. There are several definitions of alarm symptoms. Ref 16
(cited in Background), for instance, includes persistent vomiting,
lymphadenophaty and family history of upper GI cancer. The authors chose a
more strict definition, and it should be cited the rationale for that.
3. Methods and Discussion. The cross cultural validation of the LDQ should be
cited. If not available, it should be also cited in Discussion (an important
limitation).
4. Results. The aim of the study is “to assess the diagnostic yield of EGD “. So,
patients without an EGD should be excluded (therefore, all tables with 292
patients).
5. Results. Also, there were 306 eligible, but only 282 were included. 24 patients
were lost (< 8%, a pretty reasonable rate), and the reasons should be described.
Discretionary revisions:
1. Methods. First line of methods “... which provides open-access endoscopy. “ (if
it still provides open-access endoscopy, if not “which used to provide”), without
the phrase defining open-access endoscopy (redundant) (delete “that did not
require referral to specialists first.”.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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