Reviewer's report
Title:Celiac disease risk varies between birth cohorts, generating hypotheses
about causality: evidence from 36 years of population-based follow-up
Version:1Date:21 February 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Namatovu et al. studied the incidence of celiac disease (CD) in
Swedish children. The authors presented evidence from a 36 year follow up. I
think this is a nice and interesting paper. I have got the following comments:
1. As far as I understand, the authors did not take into account children
diagnosed on the basis of the latest ESPGHAN criteria that, in some cases, do
not consider the biopsy necessary any longer. Since it was shown that the
prevalence of CD varies widely according to the diagnostic criteria used (Ann
Med 2010;42:557-61), this is a strong point in favour of the present paper and
should be highlighted.
2. Do the authors know how many of these celiac children were diagnosed on a
clinical ground (symptoms, familiarity, associated conditions, etc.) and how many
thanks to screening of the general population?
3. Do the authors think that the mass screenings performed all over Europe in
the 90s may have affected the rises and falls in the figures they show? I would
like to see a comment on that.
4. I do not like to read that CD in an “autoimmune enteropathy”. Since there is
another condition defined “autoimmune enteropathy”, this is confusing. Oslo
criteria defines CD an immune-mediate enteropaty.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Celiac disease risk varies between birth cohorts, generating hypotheses
about causality: evidence from 36 years of population-based follow-up
Version:1Date:21 February 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Namatovu et al. studied the incidence of celiac disease (CD) in
Swedish children. The authors presented evidence from a 36 year follow up. I
think this is a nice and interesting paper. I have got the following comments:
1. As far as I understand, the authors did not take into account children
diagnosed on the basis of the latest ESPGHAN criteria that, in some cases, do
not consider the biopsy necessary any longer. Since it was shown that the
prevalence of CD varies widely according to the diagnostic criteria used (Ann
Med 2010;42:557-61), this is a strong point in favour of the present paper and
should be highlighted.
2. Do the authors know how many of these celiac children were diagnosed on a
clinical ground (symptoms, familiarity, associated conditions, etc.) and how many
thanks to screening of the general population?
3. Do the authors think that the mass screenings performed all over Europe in
the 90s may have affected the rises and falls in the figures they show? I would
like to see a comment on that.
4. I do not like to read that CD in an “autoimmune enteropathy”. Since there is
another condition defined “autoimmune enteropathy”, this is confusing. Oslo
criteria defines CD an immune-mediate enteropaty.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Celiac disease risk varies between birth cohorts, generating hypotheses
about causality: evidence from 36 years of population-based follow-up
Version:1Date:21 February 2014
Reviewer: Federico Biagi
Reviewer's report:
In this paper Namatovu et al. studied the incidence of celiac disease (CD) in
Swedish children. The authors presented evidence from a 36 year follow up. I
think this is a nice and interesting paper. I have got the following comments:
1. As far as I understand, the authors did not take into account children
diagnosed on the basis of the latest ESPGHAN criteria that, in some cases, do
not consider the biopsy necessary any longer. Since it was shown that the
prevalence of CD varies widely according to the diagnostic criteria used (Ann
Med 2010;42:557-61), this is a strong point in favour of the present paper and
should be highlighted.
2. Do the authors know how many of these celiac children were diagnosed on a
clinical ground (symptoms, familiarity, associated conditions, etc.) and how many
thanks to screening of the general population?
3. Do the authors think that the mass screenings performed all over Europe in
the 90s may have affected the rises and falls in the figures they show? I would
like to see a comment on that.
4. I do not like to read that CD in an “autoimmune enteropathy”. Since there is
another condition defined “autoimmune enteropathy”, this is confusing. Oslo
criteria defines CD an immune-mediate enteropaty.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant