Reviewer's report
Title:Screening for celiac disease in 1st degree relatives: a 10-year follow-up
study
Version: 3Date:25 May 2013
Reviewer: C M Frank Kneepkens
Reviewer's report:
From 634 relatives of 186 CD patients, 450 consented to participate in a study for
CD screening in first-degree relatives and 205 did so again after 1-10 years. The
first round yielded 19 new CD patients, the second round another 5. As,
however, 2 of these 5 had Marsh 1 mucosa and are therefore not biopsy-proven,
the real harvest might be considered lower. This study confirms what is already
known with regard to CD risk of first-degree relatives, but provides no new
information.
Major compulsory revisions
1. There is no information on ages of the 186 index patients at the time of the
study. This is interesting in view of the surprisingly low numer of relatives (634 =
3,5 per patient, 450 = 2,5 per patient), although one patient had I believe 15
first-degree relatives. Also , the demographic data of the 184 subjects who did
not participate should be compared to the 450 who did.
2. Table 1 reveals the details of the 8 who tested positive in the second round,
but I think those of the 19 first-round patients should be given as well.
Minor essential revisions
3. The algorithm the authors ask for has been published a few years ago (JS
Fraser et al. An algorithm for family screening for coeliac disease. World J
Gastroenterol 2006;12:7805-9). This may not be what they were looking for, but
they should have included it in the reference list.
4. There also lacks a previous Brazilian study: Martins R de C, et al. Serologic
screening and genetic testing among brazilian patients with celiac disease and
their first degree relatives. Arq Gastroenterol. 2010;47:257-62.
Discretionary revisions
5. Was the twin sister in Table 1 a monozygotic or dizygotic twin? It should be
noted that she does not (yet) qualify as CD patient given the negative endomysial
antibody test.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Screening for celiac disease in 1st degree relatives: a 10-year follow-up
study
Version: 3Date:25 May 2013
Reviewer: C M Frank Kneepkens
Reviewer's report:
From 634 relatives of 186 CD patients, 450 consented to participate in a study for
CD screening in first-degree relatives and 205 did so again after 1-10 years. The
first round yielded 19 new CD patients, the second round another 5. As,
however, 2 of these 5 had Marsh 1 mucosa and are therefore not biopsy-proven,
the real harvest might be considered lower. This study confirms what is already
known with regard to CD risk of first-degree relatives, but provides no new
information.
Major compulsory revisions
1. There is no information on ages of the 186 index patients at the time of the
study. This is interesting in view of the surprisingly low numer of relatives (634 =
3,5 per patient, 450 = 2,5 per patient), although one patient had I believe 15
first-degree relatives. Also , the demographic data of the 184 subjects who did
not participate should be compared to the 450 who did.
2. Table 1 reveals the details of the 8 who tested positive in the second round,
but I think those of the 19 first-round patients should be given as well.
Minor essential revisions
3. The algorithm the authors ask for has been published a few years ago (JS
Fraser et al. An algorithm for family screening for coeliac disease. World J
Gastroenterol 2006;12:7805-9). This may not be what they were looking for, but
they should have included it in the reference list.
4. There also lacks a previous Brazilian study: Martins R de C, et al. Serologic
screening and genetic testing among brazilian patients with celiac disease and
their first degree relatives. Arq Gastroenterol. 2010;47:257-62.
Discretionary revisions
5. Was the twin sister in Table 1 a monozygotic or dizygotic twin? It should be
noted that she does not (yet) qualify as CD patient given the negative endomysial
antibody test.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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:Screening for celiac disease in 1st degree relatives: a 10-year follow-up
study
Version: 3Date:25 May 2013
Reviewer: C M Frank Kneepkens
Reviewer's report:
From 634 relatives of 186 CD patients, 450 consented to participate in a study for
CD screening in first-degree relatives and 205 did so again after 1-10 years. The
first round yielded 19 new CD patients, the second round another 5. As,
however, 2 of these 5 had Marsh 1 mucosa and are therefore not biopsy-proven,
the real harvest might be considered lower. This study confirms what is already
known with regard to CD risk of first-degree relatives, but provides no new
information.
Major compulsory revisions
1. There is no information on ages of the 186 index patients at the time of the
study. This is interesting in view of the surprisingly low numer of relatives (634 =
3,5 per patient, 450 = 2,5 per patient), although one patient had I believe 15
first-degree relatives. Also , the demographic data of the 184 subjects who did
not participate should be compared to the 450 who did.
2. Table 1 reveals the details of the 8 who tested positive in the second round,
but I think those of the 19 first-round patients should be given as well.
Minor essential revisions
3. The algorithm the authors ask for has been published a few years ago (JS
Fraser et al. An algorithm for family screening for coeliac disease. World J
Gastroenterol 2006;12:7805-9). This may not be what they were looking for, but
they should have included it in the reference list.
4. There also lacks a previous Brazilian study: Martins R de C, et al. Serologic
screening and genetic testing among brazilian patients with celiac disease and
their first degree relatives. Arq Gastroenterol. 2010;47:257-62.
Discretionary revisions
5. Was the twin sister in Table 1 a monozygotic or dizygotic twin? It should be
noted that she does not (yet) qualify as CD patient given the negative endomysial
antibody test.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
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