Reviewer's report
Title:The Frequency Of Microscopic And Focal Active Colitis In Patients With
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 3Date:2 August 2011
Reviewer: Darren Brenner
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the time and effort you have put into revising this manuscript. I
believe this is a much clearer version worthy of publication. I have only a few
additional comments
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Study limitations: This needs to be broadened. I appreciate that you comment
on the differences in age gender but I would appreciate if you would state why
these differences are important and why the % of women w/IBS enrolled was so
low. Is this commen from trials in Turkey as it is uncommon in trials in the USA.
2. Introduction: In the sentence on the prevalenc of IBS being 7.4-19.1% I would
comment that this is the prevalence in Turkey
3. Materials and Methods: I appreciate the catergorization of IBS patients as per
Rome III subclassifications; however, the criteria you use to define IBS-D/M/C
are not per Rome III. I would change the "according to Rome III" to modified
Rome III
4. Materials and Methods: Are per my prior question re: alarm symptoms you
reference the Olden paper. While this was an excellent paper for its time there
have been subsequent studies. I would recommed that you modify the table such
that it is more consistent with the data from the ACG EBM statement which is
your citation #33.
5. Results: At the end "there was no significant differnce among the incidence of
FAC..." this is placed prior to the actual data. I would move this sentence below
the next sentence starting with "FAC was found in 6.6%..."
6. Discussion: You refernce the Chey study on colonoscopy and note that
aternative diagnoses were identified in 1.9% of IBS patients. Please clarify this
as non-constipated IBS patients.
7. Discussion: 3rd paragraph 1st word: Microscopic misspelled. Please correct.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:The Frequency Of Microscopic And Focal Active Colitis In Patients With
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 3Date:2 August 2011
Reviewer: Darren Brenner
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the time and effort you have put into revising this manuscript. I
believe this is a much clearer version worthy of publication. I have only a few
additional comments
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Study limitations: This needs to be broadened. I appreciate that you comment
on the differences in age gender but I would appreciate if you would state why
these differences are important and why the % of women w/IBS enrolled was so
low. Is this commen from trials in Turkey as it is uncommon in trials in the USA.
2. Introduction: In the sentence on the prevalenc of IBS being 7.4-19.1% I would
comment that this is the prevalence in Turkey
3. Materials and Methods: I appreciate the catergorization of IBS patients as per
Rome III subclassifications; however, the criteria you use to define IBS-D/M/C
are not per Rome III. I would change the "according to Rome III" to modified
Rome III
4. Materials and Methods: Are per my prior question re: alarm symptoms you
reference the Olden paper. While this was an excellent paper for its time there
have been subsequent studies. I would recommed that you modify the table such
that it is more consistent with the data from the ACG EBM statement which is
your citation #33.
5. Results: At the end "there was no significant differnce among the incidence of
FAC..." this is placed prior to the actual data. I would move this sentence below
the next sentence starting with "FAC was found in 6.6%..."
6. Discussion: You refernce the Chey study on colonoscopy and note that
aternative diagnoses were identified in 1.9% of IBS patients. Please clarify this
as non-constipated IBS patients.
7. Discussion: 3rd paragraph 1st word: Microscopic misspelled. Please correct.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The Frequency Of Microscopic And Focal Active Colitis In Patients With
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Version: 3Date:2 August 2011
Reviewer: Darren Brenner
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the time and effort you have put into revising this manuscript. I
believe this is a much clearer version worthy of publication. I have only a few
additional comments
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Study limitations: This needs to be broadened. I appreciate that you comment
on the differences in age gender but I would appreciate if you would state why
these differences are important and why the % of women w/IBS enrolled was so
low. Is this commen from trials in Turkey as it is uncommon in trials in the USA.
2. Introduction: In the sentence on the prevalenc of IBS being 7.4-19.1% I would
comment that this is the prevalence in Turkey
3. Materials and Methods: I appreciate the catergorization of IBS patients as per
Rome III subclassifications; however, the criteria you use to define IBS-D/M/C
are not per Rome III. I would change the "according to Rome III" to modified
Rome III
4. Materials and Methods: Are per my prior question re: alarm symptoms you
reference the Olden paper. While this was an excellent paper for its time there
have been subsequent studies. I would recommed that you modify the table such
that it is more consistent with the data from the ACG EBM statement which is
your citation #33.
5. Results: At the end "there was no significant differnce among the incidence of
FAC..." this is placed prior to the actual data. I would move this sentence below
the next sentence starting with "FAC was found in 6.6%..."
6. Discussion: You refernce the Chey study on colonoscopy and note that
aternative diagnoses were identified in 1.9% of IBS patients. Please clarify this
as non-constipated IBS patients.
7. Discussion: 3rd paragraph 1st word: Microscopic misspelled. Please correct.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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 I have no competing interests.
assistant