Reviewer's report
Title:How well do Italian family paediatricians approach and manage celiac
disease? A cross-sectional study in Puglia Region, 2012
Version: 2Date:5 October 2013
Reviewer: Olof Sandström
Reviewer's report:
Comments to “How well do Italian family paediatricians approach and manage
celiac disease? A cross-sectional study in Puglia Region, 2012” by Fortunato et
al.
This is an attempt to evaluate the care given to CD patients in the region of
Puglia in Italy by approaching family pediatricians (FPs) with a web-based
questionnaire. The questionnaire includes questions on gluten introduction,
symptoms of CD, how to diagnose CD and a self-estimation by the FPs on their
knowledge of CD. One aim was to assess the FPs approach to diagnosis and
management of CD and with the plan to in the future use this information to
improve the quality in of care.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) One main problem with the study is that 68% of FPs doesn’t participate in the
study. This gives the study less scientific significance which is not discussed
enough.
2) To study the quality of care given to CD patients is important but not original
and the paper would have been more interesting for readers of this journal if the
results had led to an implementation to improve the care and the report from a
later follow-up.
Minor Essential Revisions
3) The manuscript needs to be worked through thoroughly:
a) Important to use similar significant digits through out the manuscript.
Examples: Abstract “…Of them, 54.5% were female and 45% were aged 5-10
years.”. In Table 1 44.8% is used instead. Another example is Table 1 Clinical
presentation where several different significant digits are used.
b) The language in the manuscript need improvement.
4) FP should be used consistently after first time in introduction.
Questionnaire
It would have been valuable with instructions to FPs what is considered Low,
Medium and High knowledge and also for readers of the manuscript.
Abstract
5) Methods: Add abbreviation (FP).
6) Software not relevant in abstract.
Introduction
7) No gluten challenge biopsy is recommended to children <2 years in the new
ESPGHAN guidelines (Husby 2012).
8) Research question and aim of the study should be motivated and clearer.
Results
9) A more structured presentation, maybe with sub headings would be valuable
making it easier for the reader to follow.
10) The results from questionnaire data should be reported in a descriptive way
and analyses of OR don’t seem relevant.
Discussion
11) Discussion of the high number of not participating FPs is important, how
could this have affected the results?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:How well do Italian family paediatricians approach and manage celiac
disease? A cross-sectional study in Puglia Region, 2012
Version: 2Date:5 October 2013
Reviewer: Olof Sandström
Reviewer's report:
Comments to “How well do Italian family paediatricians approach and manage
celiac disease? A cross-sectional study in Puglia Region, 2012” by Fortunato et
al.
This is an attempt to evaluate the care given to CD patients in the region of
Puglia in Italy by approaching family pediatricians (FPs) with a web-based
questionnaire. The questionnaire includes questions on gluten introduction,
symptoms of CD, how to diagnose CD and a self-estimation by the FPs on their
knowledge of CD. One aim was to assess the FPs approach to diagnosis and
management of CD and with the plan to in the future use this information to
improve the quality in of care.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) One main problem with the study is that 68% of FPs doesn’t participate in the
study. This gives the study less scientific significance which is not discussed
enough.
2) To study the quality of care given to CD patients is important but not original
and the paper would have been more interesting for readers of this journal if the
results had led to an implementation to improve the care and the report from a
later follow-up.
Minor Essential Revisions
3) The manuscript needs to be worked through thoroughly:
a) Important to use similar significant digits through out the manuscript.
Examples: Abstract “…Of them, 54.5% were female and 45% were aged 5-10
years.”. In Table 1 44.8% is used instead. Another example is Table 1 Clinical
presentation where several different significant digits are used.
b) The language in the manuscript need improvement.
4) FP should be used consistently after first time in introduction.
Questionnaire
It would have been valuable with instructions to FPs what is considered Low,
Medium and High knowledge and also for readers of the manuscript.
Abstract
5) Methods: Add abbreviation (FP).
6) Software not relevant in abstract.
Introduction
7) No gluten challenge biopsy is recommended to children <2 years in the new
ESPGHAN guidelines (Husby 2012).
8) Research question and aim of the study should be motivated and clearer.
Results
9) A more structured presentation, maybe with sub headings would be valuable
making it easier for the reader to follow.
10) The results from questionnaire data should be reported in a descriptive way
and analyses of OR don’t seem relevant.
Discussion
11) Discussion of the high number of not participating FPs is important, how
could this have affected the results?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:How well do Italian family paediatricians approach and manage celiac
disease? A cross-sectional study in Puglia Region, 2012
Version: 2Date:5 October 2013
Reviewer: Olof Sandström
Reviewer's report:
Comments to “How well do Italian family paediatricians approach and manage
celiac disease? A cross-sectional study in Puglia Region, 2012” by Fortunato et
al.
This is an attempt to evaluate the care given to CD patients in the region of
Puglia in Italy by approaching family pediatricians (FPs) with a web-based
questionnaire. The questionnaire includes questions on gluten introduction,
symptoms of CD, how to diagnose CD and a self-estimation by the FPs on their
knowledge of CD. One aim was to assess the FPs approach to diagnosis and
management of CD and with the plan to in the future use this information to
improve the quality in of care.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1) One main problem with the study is that 68% of FPs doesn’t participate in the
study. This gives the study less scientific significance which is not discussed
enough.
2) To study the quality of care given to CD patients is important but not original
and the paper would have been more interesting for readers of this journal if the
results had led to an implementation to improve the care and the report from a
later follow-up.
Minor Essential Revisions
3) The manuscript needs to be worked through thoroughly:
a) Important to use similar significant digits through out the manuscript.
Examples: Abstract “…Of them, 54.5% were female and 45% were aged 5-10
years.”. In Table 1 44.8% is used instead. Another example is Table 1 Clinical
presentation where several different significant digits are used.
b) The language in the manuscript need improvement.
4) FP should be used consistently after first time in introduction.
Questionnaire
It would have been valuable with instructions to FPs what is considered Low,
Medium and High knowledge and also for readers of the manuscript.
Abstract
5) Methods: Add abbreviation (FP).
6) Software not relevant in abstract.
Introduction
7) No gluten challenge biopsy is recommended to children <2 years in the new
ESPGHAN guidelines (Husby 2012).
8) Research question and aim of the study should be motivated and clearer.
Results
9) A more structured presentation, maybe with sub headings would be valuable
making it easier for the reader to follow.
10) The results from questionnaire data should be reported in a descriptive way
and analyses of OR don’t seem relevant.
Discussion
11) Discussion of the high number of not participating FPs is important, how
could this have affected the results?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant