Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic gastritis in China: a national multi-center survey
Version:1Date:21 October 2013
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. It is much appreciated for authors to clarify the points, but all responses need
to be incorporated into the manuscript for a clearer understanding for the reader.
If the authors felt it is taking too much of space, then some can be moved into the
supplementary file. But I am sure the editors will allow some generosity in
number of words. The explanation for query #1 on the training of endoscopists
and their good agreement should be mentioned in the manuscript, preferably with
the Kappa values included.
2. Was pathology alone (without CLO test/breath test/serology) good enough for
a diagnosis of H. pylori infection? Please italicize Helicobacter pylori.
3. Again, the authors have given their responses to query #3 but the responses
were not in the manuscript. The consensus on difficult cases by senior
pathologists and their good agreement should be included in the paper itself.
4. Please include responses to query #5 into the manuscript.
6. With regards to discussion, it seems to me that the authors did not discuss in
details on the primary aim of the current study which was to compare diagnostic
accuracy of endoscopic appearance vs. histopathology.
7. Please include responses to query #7 into the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Chronic gastritis in China: a national multi-center survey
Version:1Date:21 October 2013
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. It is much appreciated for authors to clarify the points, but all responses need
to be incorporated into the manuscript for a clearer understanding for the reader.
If the authors felt it is taking too much of space, then some can be moved into the
supplementary file. But I am sure the editors will allow some generosity in
number of words. The explanation for query #1 on the training of endoscopists
and their good agreement should be mentioned in the manuscript, preferably with
the Kappa values included.
2. Was pathology alone (without CLO test/breath test/serology) good enough for
a diagnosis of H. pylori infection? Please italicize Helicobacter pylori.
3. Again, the authors have given their responses to query #3 but the responses
were not in the manuscript. The consensus on difficult cases by senior
pathologists and their good agreement should be included in the paper itself.
4. Please include responses to query #5 into the manuscript.
6. With regards to discussion, it seems to me that the authors did not discuss in
details on the primary aim of the current study which was to compare diagnostic
accuracy of endoscopic appearance vs. histopathology.
7. Please include responses to query #7 into the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Chronic gastritis in China: a national multi-center survey
Version:1Date:21 October 2013
Reviewer: Yeong Yeh Lee
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory revisions
1. It is much appreciated for authors to clarify the points, but all responses need
to be incorporated into the manuscript for a clearer understanding for the reader.
If the authors felt it is taking too much of space, then some can be moved into the
supplementary file. But I am sure the editors will allow some generosity in
number of words. The explanation for query #1 on the training of endoscopists
and their good agreement should be mentioned in the manuscript, preferably with
the Kappa values included.
2. Was pathology alone (without CLO test/breath test/serology) good enough for
a diagnosis of H. pylori infection? Please italicize Helicobacter pylori.
3. Again, the authors have given their responses to query #3 but the responses
were not in the manuscript. The consensus on difficult cases by senior
pathologists and their good agreement should be included in the paper itself.
4. Please include responses to query #5 into the manuscript.
6. With regards to discussion, it seems to me that the authors did not discuss in
details on the primary aim of the current study which was to compare diagnostic
accuracy of endoscopic appearance vs. histopathology.
7. Please include responses to query #7 into the manuscript.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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