Reviewer's report
Title:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:8 June 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods used are inadequate. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for
patient’s enrolment are not described. The number of biopsies taken from the
antrum along the greater curvature of the stomach is not given. The biopsies
should have been taken also from corpus and fundus along the greater curvature
of the stomach as it is known to colonize multiple sites. Please define mild,
moderate and marked density of colonization with H. pylori.
3. Are the data sound?
No. Methods used are inadequate and inclusion of patients previously receiving
treatment for H.pylori infection compromises the study results. Is the mild
infection same as mild density of colonization of H.pylori? What was the
distribution of different grades of density of H.pylori, inflammation intestinal
metaplasia and atrophic gastritis on histology in respective populations? How did
PCR results correlated with different grades of density and inflammation? What
was the incidence of antibiotics and acid reducing drugs usage in Portuguese
population? Beside antibiotics it is important to ascertain what proportion of
patients used proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor blockers as these
patients complained of dyspepsia. This will explain low density of H. pylori in
Mozambican population if these patients were on PPI. Please give numbers with
percentages in the result section for correlation.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
No
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No. Why were gastric biopsy samples from 45 Mozambican patients available
only from antrum?
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:8 June 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods used are inadequate. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for
patient’s enrolment are not described. The number of biopsies taken from the
antrum along the greater curvature of the stomach is not given. The biopsies
should have been taken also from corpus and fundus along the greater curvature
of the stomach as it is known to colonize multiple sites. Please define mild,
moderate and marked density of colonization with H. pylori.
3. Are the data sound?
No. Methods used are inadequate and inclusion of patients previously receiving
treatment for H.pylori infection compromises the study results. Is the mild
infection same as mild density of colonization of H.pylori? What was the
distribution of different grades of density of H.pylori, inflammation intestinal
metaplasia and atrophic gastritis on histology in respective populations? How did
PCR results correlated with different grades of density and inflammation? What
was the incidence of antibiotics and acid reducing drugs usage in Portuguese
population? Beside antibiotics it is important to ascertain what proportion of
patients used proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor blockers as these
patients complained of dyspepsia. This will explain low density of H. pylori in
Mozambican population if these patients were on PPI. Please give numbers with
percentages in the result section for correlation.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
No
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No. Why were gastric biopsy samples from 45 Mozambican patients available
only from antrum?
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Sensitivity is not an intrinsic property of a diagnostic test: empirical
evidence from histological diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection
Version: 1Date:8 June 2009
Reviewer: Javed Yakoob
Reviewer's report:
When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The question posed by the authors is well defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
The methods used are inadequate. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for
patient’s enrolment are not described. The number of biopsies taken from the
antrum along the greater curvature of the stomach is not given. The biopsies
should have been taken also from corpus and fundus along the greater curvature
of the stomach as it is known to colonize multiple sites. Please define mild,
moderate and marked density of colonization with H. pylori.
3. Are the data sound?
No. Methods used are inadequate and inclusion of patients previously receiving
treatment for H.pylori infection compromises the study results. Is the mild
infection same as mild density of colonization of H.pylori? What was the
distribution of different grades of density of H.pylori, inflammation intestinal
metaplasia and atrophic gastritis on histology in respective populations? How did
PCR results correlated with different grades of density and inflammation? What
was the incidence of antibiotics and acid reducing drugs usage in Portuguese
population? Beside antibiotics it is important to ascertain what proportion of
patients used proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and H2 receptor blockers as these
patients complained of dyspepsia. This will explain low density of H. pylori in
Mozambican population if these patients were on PPI. Please give numbers with
percentages in the result section for correlation.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
No
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
No. Why were gastric biopsy samples from 45 Mozambican patients available
only from antrum?
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
Yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
Yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant