Reviewer's report
Title:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:2Date:12 October 2014
Reviewer: Yuichi Adachi
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated urine histamine and methyl histamine levels in patients
with gastrointestinal food allergy and found urine methyl histamine could be a
marker for patients whose symptoms associated with over-excretion of histamine
including gastrointestinal food allergy. Although these findings seem
straightforward, there are still several points to be cleared.
Major Compulsory Revisions
First of all, the authors classified gastrointestinal food allergy into 4 subtypes
according to the Coombs’ criteria. It is well known that histamine plays a main
role in type 1 allergy, but not involved in the mechanisms of type 3 and 4 allergy.
The data which compared urine histamine excretion levels between type 1 and
other types should be shown. Next, it is not clear what is the not-restricted food.
These patients must have been told the results of the previously performed food
challenge test. It is natural that the patients with food allergy avoid the offending
food(s), even when they are told that it is OK to eat any foods. It should be
shown what kinds of food the patients had during the non-restricted food intake
period. Food challenge test would be more straightforward.
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors mentioned that only samples with pH less than 3 were used for
analysis. It should be shown that how many samples were excluded for this
reason and that how many samples were below the measurable limit. How did
the authors calculate the histamine and methylhistamine levels in two samples in
each condition?
The reason why the symptom scores did not related with histamine levels could
be explain by the fact that this study was open-labeled.
Typo: “fluor” could be “flour” in Table 1. “Seborrheic dermatitis” could be better
than “milk crust” in the medical journal.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:2Date:12 October 2014
Reviewer: Yuichi Adachi
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated urine histamine and methyl histamine levels in patients
with gastrointestinal food allergy and found urine methyl histamine could be a
marker for patients whose symptoms associated with over-excretion of histamine
including gastrointestinal food allergy. Although these findings seem
straightforward, there are still several points to be cleared.
Major Compulsory Revisions
First of all, the authors classified gastrointestinal food allergy into 4 subtypes
according to the Coombs’ criteria. It is well known that histamine plays a main
role in type 1 allergy, but not involved in the mechanisms of type 3 and 4 allergy.
The data which compared urine histamine excretion levels between type 1 and
other types should be shown. Next, it is not clear what is the not-restricted food.
These patients must have been told the results of the previously performed food
challenge test. It is natural that the patients with food allergy avoid the offending
food(s), even when they are told that it is OK to eat any foods. It should be
shown what kinds of food the patients had during the non-restricted food intake
period. Food challenge test would be more straightforward.
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors mentioned that only samples with pH less than 3 were used for
analysis. It should be shown that how many samples were excluded for this
reason and that how many samples were below the measurable limit. How did
the authors calculate the histamine and methylhistamine levels in two samples in
each condition?
The reason why the symptom scores did not related with histamine levels could
be explain by the fact that this study was open-labeled.
Typo: “fluor” could be “flour” in Table 1. “Seborrheic dermatitis” could be better
than “milk crust” in the medical journal.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Excretion of urinary histamine and N-tele methylhistamine in
gastrointestinal food allergy
Version:2Date:12 October 2014
Reviewer: Yuichi Adachi
Reviewer's report:
The authors evaluated urine histamine and methyl histamine levels in patients
with gastrointestinal food allergy and found urine methyl histamine could be a
marker for patients whose symptoms associated with over-excretion of histamine
including gastrointestinal food allergy. Although these findings seem
straightforward, there are still several points to be cleared.
Major Compulsory Revisions
First of all, the authors classified gastrointestinal food allergy into 4 subtypes
according to the Coombs’ criteria. It is well known that histamine plays a main
role in type 1 allergy, but not involved in the mechanisms of type 3 and 4 allergy.
The data which compared urine histamine excretion levels between type 1 and
other types should be shown. Next, it is not clear what is the not-restricted food.
These patients must have been told the results of the previously performed food
challenge test. It is natural that the patients with food allergy avoid the offending
food(s), even when they are told that it is OK to eat any foods. It should be
shown what kinds of food the patients had during the non-restricted food intake
period. Food challenge test would be more straightforward.
Minor Essential Revisions
The authors mentioned that only samples with pH less than 3 were used for
analysis. It should be shown that how many samples were excluded for this
reason and that how many samples were below the measurable limit. How did
the authors calculate the histamine and methylhistamine levels in two samples in
each condition?
The reason why the symptom scores did not related with histamine levels could
be explain by the fact that this study was open-labeled.
Typo: “fluor” could be “flour” in Table 1. “Seborrheic dermatitis” could be better
than “milk crust” in the medical journal.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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