Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 10  3 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Eamonn M M Quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The key issue is that raised by the two reviewers; i.e., ascertainment bias. 
The authors have attempted to address this but, in truth, it can only be accurately addressed by a truly prospective study with age- and gender-matched controls. I would, therefore, ask the authors to tone down 
their conclusions; at best, they suggest an increased risk in relation to 
age at diagnosis, no more! The manuscript, in contrast to the response, does not clearly define the control population and how they were matched for age and gender with the 
patients; this is a critical issue and must be completely addressed in the 
manuscript. Otherwise we may be seeing little but age- and gender-related differences in cancer incidence. The other findings with regard to increased rates of lymphoma and adenoca 
are not new and merely confirmatory. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 10  3 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Eamonn M M Quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The key issue is that raised by the two reviewers; i.e., ascertainment bias. 
The authors have attempted to address this but, in truth, it can only be accurately addressed by a truly prospective study with age- and gender-matched controls. I would, therefore, ask the authors to tone down 
their conclusions; at best, they suggest an increased risk in relation to 
age at diagnosis, no more! The manuscript, in contrast to the response, does not clearly define the control population and how they were matched for age and gender with the 
patients; this is a critical issue and must be completely addressed in the 
manuscript. Otherwise we may be seeing little but age- and gender-related differences in cancer incidence. The other findings with regard to increased rates of lymphoma and adenoca 
are not new and merely confirmatory. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease increases cancer risk Title: 
 10  3 January 2007 Version: Date: 
 Eamonn M M Quigley Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The key issue is that raised by the two reviewers; i.e., ascertainment bias. 
The authors have attempted to address this but, in truth, it can only be accurately addressed by a truly prospective study with age- and gender-matched controls. I would, therefore, ask the authors to tone down 
their conclusions; at best, they suggest an increased risk in relation to 
age at diagnosis, no more! The manuscript, in contrast to the response, does not clearly define the control population and how they were matched for age and gender with the 
patients; this is a critical issue and must be completely addressed in the 
manuscript. Otherwise we may be seeing little but age- and gender-related differences in cancer incidence. The other findings with regard to increased rates of lymphoma and adenoca 
are not new and merely confirmatory. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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) 
assistant