Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:4 April 2013
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective study about endoscopic findings in uninvestigated
dyspepsia. It is a single centre study performed in Sao Paulo, and definitely of
interest, especially as it presents data from an emerging country such as Brazil.
The manuscript needs further improvement of written English and should be
reviewed by a native speaker. There are some weakness in the interpretation
and discussion of the data.
Special remarks:
- Data needs to presented with range and confidence intervals
- The diagnosis of GERD needs to specified in erosive reflux disease. The
diagnosis of NERD can not be made as reflux symptoms are considered an
exclusion criteria and no other diagnostics were performed.
- What are the “other” endoscopic findings of the esophagus (table IV)
- What happened to the patients that were obviously screened but excluded?
What were the various for exclusion?
- Did the investigators take biopsies for histology also? If so, the diagnosis of
“gastritis” should be specified by histopathological finding.
- What was the pattern of gastritis? More antrum-predominant, corpus
predominant or pangastritis?
- What was the specificity of symptoms? What defines “tipic” and “atipic”?
- discussion and conclusion of the data needs more pointed abstraction of the
raw data, than just a enumeration and iteration of the results.
- “test and treat” strategy for H. pylori needs more detailed discussion for the
special situation in Sao Paulo as an area with high H. pylori prevalence (>20%).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:4 April 2013
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective study about endoscopic findings in uninvestigated
dyspepsia. It is a single centre study performed in Sao Paulo, and definitely of
interest, especially as it presents data from an emerging country such as Brazil.
The manuscript needs further improvement of written English and should be
reviewed by a native speaker. There are some weakness in the interpretation
and discussion of the data.
Special remarks:
- Data needs to presented with range and confidence intervals
- The diagnosis of GERD needs to specified in erosive reflux disease. The
diagnosis of NERD can not be made as reflux symptoms are considered an
exclusion criteria and no other diagnostics were performed.
- What are the “other” endoscopic findings of the esophagus (table IV)
- What happened to the patients that were obviously screened but excluded?
What were the various for exclusion?
- Did the investigators take biopsies for histology also? If so, the diagnosis of
“gastritis” should be specified by histopathological finding.
- What was the pattern of gastritis? More antrum-predominant, corpus
predominant or pangastritis?
- What was the specificity of symptoms? What defines “tipic” and “atipic”?
- discussion and conclusion of the data needs more pointed abstraction of the
raw data, than just a enumeration and iteration of the results.
- “test and treat” strategy for H. pylori needs more detailed discussion for the
special situation in Sao Paulo as an area with high H. pylori prevalence (>20%).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version: 1Date:4 April 2013
Reviewer: Peter Malfertheiner
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective study about endoscopic findings in uninvestigated
dyspepsia. It is a single centre study performed in Sao Paulo, and definitely of
interest, especially as it presents data from an emerging country such as Brazil.
The manuscript needs further improvement of written English and should be
reviewed by a native speaker. There are some weakness in the interpretation
and discussion of the data.
Special remarks:
- Data needs to presented with range and confidence intervals
- The diagnosis of GERD needs to specified in erosive reflux disease. The
diagnosis of NERD can not be made as reflux symptoms are considered an
exclusion criteria and no other diagnostics were performed.
- What are the “other” endoscopic findings of the esophagus (table IV)
- What happened to the patients that were obviously screened but excluded?
What were the various for exclusion?
- Did the investigators take biopsies for histology also? If so, the diagnosis of
“gastritis” should be specified by histopathological finding.
- What was the pattern of gastritis? More antrum-predominant, corpus
predominant or pangastritis?
- What was the specificity of symptoms? What defines “tipic” and “atipic”?
- discussion and conclusion of the data needs more pointed abstraction of the
raw data, than just a enumeration and iteration of the results.
- “test and treat” strategy for H. pylori needs more detailed discussion for the
special situation in Sao Paulo as an area with high H. pylori prevalence (>20%).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
assistant