Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from coeliac patients: the need
for different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:4Date:3 August 2015
Reviewer: Douglas Curran-Everett
Reviewer's report:
General Comment
This paper compares 2 methods of evaluating duodenal histology. I have
reviewed this paper from the perspective of the statistical analyses.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract (line 35), Results (for example, lines 143-144), SD. The preferred
format for reporting SD is 36 (SD 15) years. Because a SD is a single, positive
number, the +/- is superfluous.
2. Methods, line 128. What assumptions were verified by SPSS?
3. Results (line 152) and Figure 2, P < 0.05. Please report the actual P value
(rounded to 2 decimal places if it is greater than 0.01. This reports more
information with the same amount of ink.
4. Results, line 178, kappa. Please report the actual confidence interval for
kappa.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from coeliac patients: the need
for different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:4Date:3 August 2015
Reviewer: Douglas Curran-Everett
Reviewer's report:
General Comment
This paper compares 2 methods of evaluating duodenal histology. I have
reviewed this paper from the perspective of the statistical analyses.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract (line 35), Results (for example, lines 143-144), SD. The preferred
format for reporting SD is 36 (SD 15) years. Because a SD is a single, positive
number, the +/- is superfluous.
2. Methods, line 128. What assumptions were verified by SPSS?
3. Results (line 152) and Figure 2, P < 0.05. Please report the actual P value
(rounded to 2 decimal places if it is greater than 0.01. This reports more
information with the same amount of ink.
4. Results, line 178, kappa. Please report the actual confidence interval for
kappa.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from coeliac patients: the need
for different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:4Date:3 August 2015
Reviewer: Douglas Curran-Everett
Reviewer's report:
General Comment
This paper compares 2 methods of evaluating duodenal histology. I have
reviewed this paper from the perspective of the statistical analyses.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Abstract (line 35), Results (for example, lines 143-144), SD. The preferred
format for reporting SD is 36 (SD 15) years. Because a SD is a single, positive
number, the +/- is superfluous.
2. Methods, line 128. What assumptions were verified by SPSS?
3. Results (line 152) and Figure 2, P < 0.05. Please report the actual P value
(rounded to 2 decimal places if it is greater than 0.01. This reports more
information with the same amount of ink.
4. Results, line 178, kappa. Please report the actual confidence interval for
kappa.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant