Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 2Date:17 June 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
Thank You for submitting a revised version of the manuscript mentioned above.
There are some minor comments that should be respected before publication of
the article can be considered.
Abstract / Materials and Methods: The changes recommended are adequately
addressed.
Results:
1) Concerning table 1, the changes recommended have been adequately
realized.
2) First paragraph, line two: Why do you still maintain into the “ascending” and
“descending” colon, although the groups mentioned in the methods part are
subdivided according to “right” and “left colon”? Please change.
Discussion:
1) From paragraph 2 on the abbreviation CC (“Colonic Cancer”?) is used without
being introduced. In the text the differentiation between CC and CRN is not
clearly defined.
2) Paragraph 3, line 9: What do You mean by “serologic CRNs”?
3) Paragraph 4: The part about remission of MALT lymphoma in patients with
Cap polyposis is not relevant for the study presented.
4) Paragraph 5, line 6: The study of Grahn et al would be cited more
appropriately in paragraph 3, where the association of H. pylori-positivity and size
or localization of the polyps is discussed.
5) Paragraph 6, 8: “Numerous studies”, please quote at least one (Review,
Meta-Analysis).
6) Paragraph 6, 9: “…the absence of H. pylori…”: You stated H. pylori-positivity
in villous adenomata! You should at least change this into “ the absence of H.
pylori ….as reported by several authors…” or include this message at a different
place in the article.
7) Paragraph 7+8: Discussion of methodical aspects should not be the final
paragraph of the discussion. The detailed repetition of results is not necessary in
this section.
8) Structure:
a. The paragraph about the role of gastrin might not be optimal as an opener for
the discussion since no gastrin-related parameters have been evaluated.
9) Spelling mistakes:
a. Paragraph 2, line 1: must be “H. pylori”
b. Paragraph 3, line 11: must be “A study of”
c. Paragraph 13, line 13: must be “according”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 2Date:17 June 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
Thank You for submitting a revised version of the manuscript mentioned above.
There are some minor comments that should be respected before publication of
the article can be considered.
Abstract / Materials and Methods: The changes recommended are adequately
addressed.
Results:
1) Concerning table 1, the changes recommended have been adequately
realized.
2) First paragraph, line two: Why do you still maintain into the “ascending” and
“descending” colon, although the groups mentioned in the methods part are
subdivided according to “right” and “left colon”? Please change.
Discussion:
1) From paragraph 2 on the abbreviation CC (“Colonic Cancer”?) is used without
being introduced. In the text the differentiation between CC and CRN is not
clearly defined.
2) Paragraph 3, line 9: What do You mean by “serologic CRNs”?
3) Paragraph 4: The part about remission of MALT lymphoma in patients with
Cap polyposis is not relevant for the study presented.
4) Paragraph 5, line 6: The study of Grahn et al would be cited more
appropriately in paragraph 3, where the association of H. pylori-positivity and size
or localization of the polyps is discussed.
5) Paragraph 6, 8: “Numerous studies”, please quote at least one (Review,
Meta-Analysis).
6) Paragraph 6, 9: “…the absence of H. pylori…”: You stated H. pylori-positivity
in villous adenomata! You should at least change this into “ the absence of H.
pylori ….as reported by several authors…” or include this message at a different
place in the article.
7) Paragraph 7+8: Discussion of methodical aspects should not be the final
paragraph of the discussion. The detailed repetition of results is not necessary in
this section.
8) Structure:
a. The paragraph about the role of gastrin might not be optimal as an opener for
the discussion since no gastrin-related parameters have been evaluated.
9) Spelling mistakes:
a. Paragraph 2, line 1: must be “H. pylori”
b. Paragraph 3, line 11: must be “A study of”
c. Paragraph 13, line 13: must be “according”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Immunohistochemical testing for Helicobacter Pylori Existence in
neoplasms of the colon
Version: 2Date:17 June 2008
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
Thank You for submitting a revised version of the manuscript mentioned above.
There are some minor comments that should be respected before publication of
the article can be considered.
Abstract / Materials and Methods: The changes recommended are adequately
addressed.
Results:
1) Concerning table 1, the changes recommended have been adequately
realized.
2) First paragraph, line two: Why do you still maintain into the “ascending” and
“descending” colon, although the groups mentioned in the methods part are
subdivided according to “right” and “left colon”? Please change.
Discussion:
1) From paragraph 2 on the abbreviation CC (“Colonic Cancer”?) is used without
being introduced. In the text the differentiation between CC and CRN is not
clearly defined.
2) Paragraph 3, line 9: What do You mean by “serologic CRNs”?
3) Paragraph 4: The part about remission of MALT lymphoma in patients with
Cap polyposis is not relevant for the study presented.
4) Paragraph 5, line 6: The study of Grahn et al would be cited more
appropriately in paragraph 3, where the association of H. pylori-positivity and size
or localization of the polyps is discussed.
5) Paragraph 6, 8: “Numerous studies”, please quote at least one (Review,
Meta-Analysis).
6) Paragraph 6, 9: “…the absence of H. pylori…”: You stated H. pylori-positivity
in villous adenomata! You should at least change this into “ the absence of H.
pylori ….as reported by several authors…” or include this message at a different
place in the article.
7) Paragraph 7+8: Discussion of methodical aspects should not be the final
paragraph of the discussion. The detailed repetition of results is not necessary in
this section.
8) Structure:
a. The paragraph about the role of gastrin might not be optimal as an opener for
the discussion since no gastrin-related parameters have been evaluated.
9) Spelling mistakes:
a. Paragraph 2, line 1: must be “H. pylori”
b. Paragraph 3, line 11: must be “A study of”
c. Paragraph 13, line 13: must be “according”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests.
assistant