Reviewer's report
Title:Dietary intakes in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Stine Störsrud
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. What are the main aim(s)? To analyse for differences between subgrous and
gender or to compare to the general population and recommendations?
(methods vs results).
2. The aims of the study were to compare IBS patients to dietary recommended
values and population intakes, as well as assessing by gender and IBS subtype.
There are however no hypothesis or discussion about why there should be
differences in the dietary intake between gender or IBS subtype.
3. More information about the NDNS, i.e. method used for measuring dietary
intake, basic demographics.
4. Were the controls (NDNS) matched for gender, age, BMI...?
5. BMI of the IBS subjects compared to the healthy population (NDNS)?
6. The FFQ used (before modification) was found to give higher values for most
nutrients than other methods (according to ref 17). Could this explain the results?
7. No statistics used when comparing IBS subjects and NDNS as well as
recommended values.
8. A very few number of men, especially when presented by subtype (type A n=7,
type C n=5, type D n=11), is it meaningful dividing only 23 male subjects into
subtypes? Statistical analysis in 5-11 subjects?
9. No p-values in tables, only a few in the text (BMI in male subtypes).
10. Describe the results from previously done studies on dietary intake in IBS
subjects using 3-day dietary record or dietary recall. Did the FFQ method present
other/devian results?
11. Exclusion criteria: taking medication for their IBS. Any medications? For how
long? Does this means that the IBS subjects were relatively healthy IBS
patients? Could this explain the results?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. At page 7 and 8 the authors speculate about the higher intake of selected
micronutrients in the IBS subjects compared to reference nutrient intakes and
NDNS. This is not results, should be a part of discussion.
2. Page 8: Presentation of the intake of fruit and vegetables and alcohol - why
revise this when it was not part of the aim(s) of the study and when suggesting
that the high intake in the IBS subjects was a consequence of over-reporting.
Alcohol could/should be presented as macronutrients.
3. The authors describe in the background about IBS-subjects to restrict their
food intake of eliminate provocative dietary agents as lactose or wheat.
References or speculations?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Explain o and * in figures.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests!
Reviewer's report
Title:Dietary intakes in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Stine Störsrud
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. What are the main aim(s)? To analyse for differences between subgrous and
gender or to compare to the general population and recommendations?
(methods vs results).
2. The aims of the study were to compare IBS patients to dietary recommended
values and population intakes, as well as assessing by gender and IBS subtype.
There are however no hypothesis or discussion about why there should be
differences in the dietary intake between gender or IBS subtype.
3. More information about the NDNS, i.e. method used for measuring dietary
intake, basic demographics.
4. Were the controls (NDNS) matched for gender, age, BMI...?
5. BMI of the IBS subjects compared to the healthy population (NDNS)?
6. The FFQ used (before modification) was found to give higher values for most
nutrients than other methods (according to ref 17). Could this explain the results?
7. No statistics used when comparing IBS subjects and NDNS as well as
recommended values.
8. A very few number of men, especially when presented by subtype (type A n=7,
type C n=5, type D n=11), is it meaningful dividing only 23 male subjects into
subtypes? Statistical analysis in 5-11 subjects?
9. No p-values in tables, only a few in the text (BMI in male subtypes).
10. Describe the results from previously done studies on dietary intake in IBS
subjects using 3-day dietary record or dietary recall. Did the FFQ method present
other/devian results?
11. Exclusion criteria: taking medication for their IBS. Any medications? For how
long? Does this means that the IBS subjects were relatively healthy IBS
patients? Could this explain the results?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. At page 7 and 8 the authors speculate about the higher intake of selected
micronutrients in the IBS subjects compared to reference nutrient intakes and
NDNS. This is not results, should be a part of discussion.
2. Page 8: Presentation of the intake of fruit and vegetables and alcohol - why
revise this when it was not part of the aim(s) of the study and when suggesting
that the high intake in the IBS subjects was a consequence of over-reporting.
Alcohol could/should be presented as macronutrients.
3. The authors describe in the background about IBS-subjects to restrict their
food intake of eliminate provocative dietary agents as lactose or wheat.
References or speculations?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Explain o and * in figures.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests!
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Dietary intakes in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome
Version: 1Date:12 October 2010
Reviewer: Stine Störsrud
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. What are the main aim(s)? To analyse for differences between subgrous and
gender or to compare to the general population and recommendations?
(methods vs results).
2. The aims of the study were to compare IBS patients to dietary recommended
values and population intakes, as well as assessing by gender and IBS subtype.
There are however no hypothesis or discussion about why there should be
differences in the dietary intake between gender or IBS subtype.
3. More information about the NDNS, i.e. method used for measuring dietary
intake, basic demographics.
4. Were the controls (NDNS) matched for gender, age, BMI...?
5. BMI of the IBS subjects compared to the healthy population (NDNS)?
6. The FFQ used (before modification) was found to give higher values for most
nutrients than other methods (according to ref 17). Could this explain the results?
7. No statistics used when comparing IBS subjects and NDNS as well as
recommended values.
8. A very few number of men, especially when presented by subtype (type A n=7,
type C n=5, type D n=11), is it meaningful dividing only 23 male subjects into
subtypes? Statistical analysis in 5-11 subjects?
9. No p-values in tables, only a few in the text (BMI in male subtypes).
10. Describe the results from previously done studies on dietary intake in IBS
subjects using 3-day dietary record or dietary recall. Did the FFQ method present
other/devian results?
11. Exclusion criteria: taking medication for their IBS. Any medications? For how
long? Does this means that the IBS subjects were relatively healthy IBS
patients? Could this explain the results?
Minor Essential Revisions
1. At page 7 and 8 the authors speculate about the higher intake of selected
micronutrients in the IBS subjects compared to reference nutrient intakes and
NDNS. This is not results, should be a part of discussion.
2. Page 8: Presentation of the intake of fruit and vegetables and alcohol - why
revise this when it was not part of the aim(s) of the study and when suggesting
that the high intake in the IBS subjects was a consequence of over-reporting.
Alcohol could/should be presented as macronutrients.
3. The authors describe in the background about IBS-subjects to restrict their
food intake of eliminate provocative dietary agents as lactose or wheat.
References or speculations?
Discretionary Revisions
1. Explain o and * in figures.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests!
assistant