Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 1Date:18 July 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
- Grammar needs to be checked throughout
- there should be a description of whether the different aboriginal groups are
racially/ethnically different
- pg 7 - abbreviations should be clarified when they are first mentioned (ALT, etc)
- alcohol drinking and smoking are not defined. is this 'ever' drinking or was there
a specific question asked about number of drinks per week to define who is a
drinker?
- what is the number of subjects eligible? what is the proportion of those that
participated? are the participants and nonparticipants different?
- are the subjects who underwent the sonography different in various
demographic distributions from the bigger group of subjects who participated?
- pg 12 - sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false
- page 12 - last sentence - why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
- should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 1Date:18 July 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
- Grammar needs to be checked throughout
- there should be a description of whether the different aboriginal groups are
racially/ethnically different
- pg 7 - abbreviations should be clarified when they are first mentioned (ALT, etc)
- alcohol drinking and smoking are not defined. is this 'ever' drinking or was there
a specific question asked about number of drinks per week to define who is a
drinker?
- what is the number of subjects eligible? what is the proportion of those that
participated? are the participants and nonparticipants different?
- are the subjects who underwent the sonography different in various
demographic distributions from the bigger group of subjects who participated?
- pg 12 - sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false
- page 12 - last sentence - why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
- should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence and determinants of biochemical dysfunction of the liver in
Atayal aboriginal community of Taiwan: Is betel nut chewing a risk factor?
Version: 1Date:18 July 2007
Reviewer: Mia Hashibe
Reviewer's report:
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision
on publication can be reached)
- Grammar needs to be checked throughout
- there should be a description of whether the different aboriginal groups are
racially/ethnically different
- pg 7 - abbreviations should be clarified when they are first mentioned (ALT, etc)
- alcohol drinking and smoking are not defined. is this 'ever' drinking or was there
a specific question asked about number of drinks per week to define who is a
drinker?
- what is the number of subjects eligible? what is the proportion of those that
participated? are the participants and nonparticipants different?
- are the subjects who underwent the sonography different in various
demographic distributions from the bigger group of subjects who participated?
- pg 12 - sentence about 65 percent participation rate in 2 groups being similar
and not being able to account for differences in liver function observed is
completely false
- page 12 - last sentence - why do authors think only random misclassification is
a problem? there can be plenty of nonrandom error that is not discussed.
- should separate out the effects of betel quid and cigarette smoking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of
a term, which the author can be trusted to correct)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
What next?: Reject because scientifically unsound
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
assistant