Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version:3Date:7 November 2013
Reviewer: Marek Brabec
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting applied study of considerable practical interest. It uses
standard statistical tools to reach appealing conclusions. It should be published.
Below, we list some points and details which should be modified/corrected before
the publication.
The sentence “The mean age was 44 years and women comprised 65% of the
population.” is highly misleading and should be changed. The word “population”
is completely inappropriate here. Something like “sample” is to be used.
The word “sensibility” on the vertical axis of the Figure 1 should be replaced by
“sensitivity”.
In the Figure 2 (UDE-Score), there appears Age as one of the explanatory
variable. Reading the part of the text referring to the Figure 2, it is probably
wrong to write 0.7age in the formula. From the text on page 8 (“…logistic
regression of age > 48 years...”), it seems that we should have something like:
with being an indicator function (assuming 1 if its argument is true and 0 if it is
false). This would amount to 0.7*age for age over 48 and 0 for age less than or
equal to 48. Alternatively, we might have which amounts to 0.7 for age over 47
and 0 otherwise. One cannot tell from the text what of the two possibilities (or
even some other, more exotic variant) was used. The paper should specify the
model and the score unambiguously (as it would be quite dangerous for a user to
take one interpretation, where in fact the other was used by the authors). This
can be achieved via indicator function formalism (being used as one component
in the full model/score specification) as above, or via other description.
Nevertheless, the description should be clear and unequivocal.
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version:3Date:7 November 2013
Reviewer: Marek Brabec
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting applied study of considerable practical interest. It uses
standard statistical tools to reach appealing conclusions. It should be published.
Below, we list some points and details which should be modified/corrected before
the publication.
The sentence “The mean age was 44 years and women comprised 65% of the
population.” is highly misleading and should be changed. The word “population”
is completely inappropriate here. Something like “sample” is to be used.
The word “sensibility” on the vertical axis of the Figure 1 should be replaced by
“sensitivity”.
In the Figure 2 (UDE-Score), there appears Age as one of the explanatory
variable. Reading the part of the text referring to the Figure 2, it is probably
wrong to write 0.7age in the formula. From the text on page 8 (“…logistic
regression of age > 48 years...”), it seems that we should have something like:
with being an indicator function (assuming 1 if its argument is true and 0 if it is
false). This would amount to 0.7*age for age over 48 and 0 for age less than or
equal to 48. Alternatively, we might have which amounts to 0.7 for age over 47
and 0 otherwise. One cannot tell from the text what of the two possibilities (or
even some other, more exotic variant) was used. The paper should specify the
model and the score unambiguously (as it would be quite dangerous for a user to
take one interpretation, where in fact the other was used by the authors). This
can be achieved via indicator function formalism (being used as one component
in the full model/score specification) as above, or via other description.
Nevertheless, the description should be clear and unequivocal.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Endoscopic findings in uninvestigated dyspepsia
Version:3Date:7 November 2013
Reviewer: Marek Brabec
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting applied study of considerable practical interest. It uses
standard statistical tools to reach appealing conclusions. It should be published.
Below, we list some points and details which should be modified/corrected before
the publication.
The sentence “The mean age was 44 years and women comprised 65% of the
population.” is highly misleading and should be changed. The word “population”
is completely inappropriate here. Something like “sample” is to be used.
The word “sensibility” on the vertical axis of the Figure 1 should be replaced by
“sensitivity”.
In the Figure 2 (UDE-Score), there appears Age as one of the explanatory
variable. Reading the part of the text referring to the Figure 2, it is probably
wrong to write 0.7age in the formula. From the text on page 8 (“…logistic
regression of age > 48 years...”), it seems that we should have something like:
with being an indicator function (assuming 1 if its argument is true and 0 if it is
false). This would amount to 0.7*age for age over 48 and 0 for age less than or
equal to 48. Alternatively, we might have which amounts to 0.7 for age over 47
and 0 otherwise. One cannot tell from the text what of the two possibilities (or
even some other, more exotic variant) was used. The paper should specify the
model and the score unambiguously (as it would be quite dangerous for a user to
take one interpretation, where in fact the other was used by the authors). This
can be achieved via indicator function formalism (being used as one component
in the full model/score specification) as above, or via other description.
Nevertheless, the description should be clear and unequivocal.
assistant