Reviewer's report
Title:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease among coeliac disease patients
in a Hungarian coeliac centre
Version:3Date:16 April 2015
Reviewer: Alina Popp
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kocsis, et al aimed to determine the prevalence of inflammatory
bowel disease in a celiac patient cohort.
The authors are proceeding using a retrospective analysis regarding 248 patients
with celiac disease (CeD).
I have the following concerns, suggestions and questions related to this paper.
1. Background:
I would recommend to exclude Table 1 completely. This Table would have a
place in a review article. I would say here is not needed. It can be written in the
text some of the most frequent/ important associated diseases, but this somehow
extended Table is not needed.
2. Methods:
Line 97: “in order to diagnose CeD, tissue transglutaminase antibody testing
(tTG….) and endomysium antibody tests were used for serology”. Please add
“and/or endomysium..” so the reader understands that either tTG or EMA was
determined at the CeD diagnosis and not both.
3. Results:
Line 117:”All the patients had serological evidence of CeD”. Please specify which
patients are you addressing at this point, if those 8 patients having both CeD and
IBD. And please clarify that the serology was positive at the time of initial
diagnosis of CeD. This is what I understood from the text, please clarify.
Figures 1,2,3 are not necessary at all. It is already very clear from the text, the
figures are not needed.
Line 126: The percentages: 25% cases having normal BMD, 50% having
osteopenia and 25% having osteoporosis. The numbers are so small, that the
percentages are not needed. It is clear form the numbers presented in the text.
4. Discussion:
Lines 162-167. This paragraph is confusing. Line 162 is telling that CeD
serological testing were performed with EMA. This is confusing: which patients
are now discussed? All CeD patients? Those 8 having also IBD? About what
moment in the evolution of this patients were this EMA test done? On line 163
-167 is then commented the potential false positivity of tTG when testing
individuals with autoimmune diseases. The reader might understand that de CeD
serology was repeated for this IBD patients and it was seroconverted positive?
What is the point of this paragraph in relation with this study, in relation with the
methods and results of this study. Please rephrase and clarify.
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:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease among coeliac disease patients
in a Hungarian coeliac centre
Version:3Date:16 April 2015
Reviewer: Alina Popp
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kocsis, et al aimed to determine the prevalence of inflammatory
bowel disease in a celiac patient cohort.
The authors are proceeding using a retrospective analysis regarding 248 patients
with celiac disease (CeD).
I have the following concerns, suggestions and questions related to this paper.
1. Background:
I would recommend to exclude Table 1 completely. This Table would have a
place in a review article. I would say here is not needed. It can be written in the
text some of the most frequent/ important associated diseases, but this somehow
extended Table is not needed.
2. Methods:
Line 97: “in order to diagnose CeD, tissue transglutaminase antibody testing
(tTG….) and endomysium antibody tests were used for serology”. Please add
“and/or endomysium..” so the reader understands that either tTG or EMA was
determined at the CeD diagnosis and not both.
3. Results:
Line 117:”All the patients had serological evidence of CeD”. Please specify which
patients are you addressing at this point, if those 8 patients having both CeD and
IBD. And please clarify that the serology was positive at the time of initial
diagnosis of CeD. This is what I understood from the text, please clarify.
Figures 1,2,3 are not necessary at all. It is already very clear from the text, the
figures are not needed.
Line 126: The percentages: 25% cases having normal BMD, 50% having
osteopenia and 25% having osteoporosis. The numbers are so small, that the
percentages are not needed. It is clear form the numbers presented in the text.
4. Discussion:
Lines 162-167. This paragraph is confusing. Line 162 is telling that CeD
serological testing were performed with EMA. This is confusing: which patients
are now discussed? All CeD patients? Those 8 having also IBD? About what
moment in the evolution of this patients were this EMA test done? On line 163
-167 is then commented the potential false positivity of tTG when testing
individuals with autoimmune diseases. The reader might understand that de CeD
serology was repeated for this IBD patients and it was seroconverted positive?
What is the point of this paragraph in relation with this study, in relation with the
methods and results of this study. Please rephrase and clarify.
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:Prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease among coeliac disease patients
in a Hungarian coeliac centre
Version:3Date:16 April 2015
Reviewer: Alina Popp
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Kocsis, et al aimed to determine the prevalence of inflammatory
bowel disease in a celiac patient cohort.
The authors are proceeding using a retrospective analysis regarding 248 patients
with celiac disease (CeD).
I have the following concerns, suggestions and questions related to this paper.
1. Background:
I would recommend to exclude Table 1 completely. This Table would have a
place in a review article. I would say here is not needed. It can be written in the
text some of the most frequent/ important associated diseases, but this somehow
extended Table is not needed.
2. Methods:
Line 97: “in order to diagnose CeD, tissue transglutaminase antibody testing
(tTG….) and endomysium antibody tests were used for serology”. Please add
“and/or endomysium..” so the reader understands that either tTG or EMA was
determined at the CeD diagnosis and not both.
3. Results:
Line 117:”All the patients had serological evidence of CeD”. Please specify which
patients are you addressing at this point, if those 8 patients having both CeD and
IBD. And please clarify that the serology was positive at the time of initial
diagnosis of CeD. This is what I understood from the text, please clarify.
Figures 1,2,3 are not necessary at all. It is already very clear from the text, the
figures are not needed.
Line 126: The percentages: 25% cases having normal BMD, 50% having
osteopenia and 25% having osteoporosis. The numbers are so small, that the
percentages are not needed. It is clear form the numbers presented in the text.
4. Discussion:
Lines 162-167. This paragraph is confusing. Line 162 is telling that CeD
serological testing were performed with EMA. This is confusing: which patients
are now discussed? All CeD patients? Those 8 having also IBD? About what
moment in the evolution of this patients were this EMA test done? On line 163
-167 is then commented the potential false positivity of tTG when testing
individuals with autoimmune diseases. The reader might understand that de CeD
serology was repeated for this IBD patients and it was seroconverted positive?
What is the point of this paragraph in relation with this study, in relation with the
methods and results of this study. Please rephrase and clarify.
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