Reviewer's report
Title:Pyoderma gangrenosum in refractory celiac disease: a case report
Version: 1Date:29 September 2013
Reviewer: Francesco Valitutti
Reviewer's report:
In this case report by Sedda et al. a possible coexistence between refractory
celiac disease and pyoderma gangrenosum is described for the first time.
The paper can be accepted when the authors address the following criticisms.
1) since this is a single report, the sentence in the abstract "physicians should be
aware that pyoderma gangrenosum can associate with refractory celiac disease"
is not appropriate: a conclusive association is not sound, albeit the case
described. That sentence can be misleading and should be removed from the
abstract.
2) also in the abstract, the last sentence on the immunological complexity of RCD
versus pyoderma g. sounds too definite despite the paucity of data to support it.
Please remove it.
3) pyoderma gangrenosum should be included among the keywords.
4) in the background (line 5) please remove or rephrase "strictly linked to the
clinical presentation": the meaning is not clear
5) (line 17) "be called into question" should be replaced by "be questioned". The
following “Whether” should be changed with “when”.
6) (line 24) “pathologies” should be changed with “diseases” and “which
associate with” should be changed with “which might be associated to”
7) since RCD is usually a consequence of a long-standing undiagnosed or
non-compliant-to-diet celiac disease, information about dietary compliance from
1993 should be given to the reader in the case presentation
8) In the conclusion (line21) please add “case” to “this is the first (case)”. Also
state more cautiously: “to show a POSSIBLE association”. Please remove from
the conclusions statements on the complexity of the immunological response and
on the awareness of the physicians about this possible association.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Pyoderma gangrenosum in refractory celiac disease: a case report
Version: 1Date:29 September 2013
Reviewer: Francesco Valitutti
Reviewer's report:
In this case report by Sedda et al. a possible coexistence between refractory
celiac disease and pyoderma gangrenosum is described for the first time.
The paper can be accepted when the authors address the following criticisms.
1) since this is a single report, the sentence in the abstract "physicians should be
aware that pyoderma gangrenosum can associate with refractory celiac disease"
is not appropriate: a conclusive association is not sound, albeit the case
described. That sentence can be misleading and should be removed from the
abstract.
2) also in the abstract, the last sentence on the immunological complexity of RCD
versus pyoderma g. sounds too definite despite the paucity of data to support it.
Please remove it.
3) pyoderma gangrenosum should be included among the keywords.
4) in the background (line 5) please remove or rephrase "strictly linked to the
clinical presentation": the meaning is not clear
5) (line 17) "be called into question" should be replaced by "be questioned". The
following “Whether” should be changed with “when”.
6) (line 24) “pathologies” should be changed with “diseases” and “which
associate with” should be changed with “which might be associated to”
7) since RCD is usually a consequence of a long-standing undiagnosed or
non-compliant-to-diet celiac disease, information about dietary compliance from
1993 should be given to the reader in the case presentation
8) In the conclusion (line21) please add “case” to “this is the first (case)”. Also
state more cautiously: “to show a POSSIBLE association”. Please remove from
the conclusions statements on the complexity of the immunological response and
on the awareness of the physicians about this possible association.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Pyoderma gangrenosum in refractory celiac disease: a case report
Version: 1Date:29 September 2013
Reviewer: Francesco Valitutti
Reviewer's report:
In this case report by Sedda et al. a possible coexistence between refractory
celiac disease and pyoderma gangrenosum is described for the first time.
The paper can be accepted when the authors address the following criticisms.
1) since this is a single report, the sentence in the abstract "physicians should be
aware that pyoderma gangrenosum can associate with refractory celiac disease"
is not appropriate: a conclusive association is not sound, albeit the case
described. That sentence can be misleading and should be removed from the
abstract.
2) also in the abstract, the last sentence on the immunological complexity of RCD
versus pyoderma g. sounds too definite despite the paucity of data to support it.
Please remove it.
3) pyoderma gangrenosum should be included among the keywords.
4) in the background (line 5) please remove or rephrase "strictly linked to the
clinical presentation": the meaning is not clear
5) (line 17) "be called into question" should be replaced by "be questioned". The
following “Whether” should be changed with “when”.
6) (line 24) “pathologies” should be changed with “diseases” and “which
associate with” should be changed with “which might be associated to”
7) since RCD is usually a consequence of a long-standing undiagnosed or
non-compliant-to-diet celiac disease, information about dietary compliance from
1993 should be given to the reader in the case presentation
8) In the conclusion (line21) please add “case” to “this is the first (case)”. Also
state more cautiously: “to show a POSSIBLE association”. Please remove from
the conclusions statements on the complexity of the immunological response and
on the awareness of the physicians about this possible association.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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