Reviewer's report
Title:Deletion of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in genetically targeted mice supports
development of intestinal inflammation
Version: 2Date:1 January 2012
Reviewer: Alex Sánchez-Pla
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Dear Sirs
I have been asked to provide my statistical opinion about the analyses performed
in this paper.
The statistics support of this work seems very weak and the few references
made to statistical tests are difficult to link with the results.
For instance a reference to Kruskal Walllis and two way ANOVA are done.
But details of why they have decided to perform each one, or which are the
ANOVA factors, or where do these tests apply are either difficult to find or
unexistant.
The statistical support in this work has two main drawbacks that should be
remedied:
- Information about the experimental design is missing: how many animals have
been allocated to each treatment, and why this number has been chosen ("a
minimum of 5" may mean 5 or 50)
- For each comparison where a statement of difference is made in the results
part there should be information available on which test has been used and on
the results of the test (for instance the p-value) that lead to a decision of
significant difference.
- Statistical methods should be referenced in the methods part of the paper.
Without having to go into detail there should be some explanation of why a
method is chosen (why Kruskal wallis instead of anova?) or how is it applied (if a
two factor anova is used there should be an explanation of which are the factors
in the model.
It should be informative if the comparisons and their results where shown in a
tabular form. If the authors prefer to rely on plots, clear reference to the tests and
the results should appear in the caption of the figures. In this case the tables may
be provided as suplementary material.
In summary in my opinion there is need and place for a clear improvement in
both the statistical methods and the use of statistical results in the paper.
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:Deletion of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in genetically targeted mice supports
development of intestinal inflammation
Version: 2Date:1 January 2012
Reviewer: Alex Sánchez-Pla
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Dear Sirs
I have been asked to provide my statistical opinion about the analyses performed
in this paper.
The statistics support of this work seems very weak and the few references
made to statistical tests are difficult to link with the results.
For instance a reference to Kruskal Walllis and two way ANOVA are done.
But details of why they have decided to perform each one, or which are the
ANOVA factors, or where do these tests apply are either difficult to find or
unexistant.
The statistical support in this work has two main drawbacks that should be
remedied:
- Information about the experimental design is missing: how many animals have
been allocated to each treatment, and why this number has been chosen ("a
minimum of 5" may mean 5 or 50)
- For each comparison where a statement of difference is made in the results
part there should be information available on which test has been used and on
the results of the test (for instance the p-value) that lead to a decision of
significant difference.
- Statistical methods should be referenced in the methods part of the paper.
Without having to go into detail there should be some explanation of why a
method is chosen (why Kruskal wallis instead of anova?) or how is it applied (if a
two factor anova is used there should be an explanation of which are the factors
in the model.
It should be informative if the comparisons and their results where shown in a
tabular form. If the authors prefer to rely on plots, clear reference to the tests and
the results should appear in the caption of the figures. In this case the tables may
be provided as suplementary material.
In summary in my opinion there is need and place for a clear improvement in
both the statistical methods and the use of statistical results in the paper.
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:Deletion of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in genetically targeted mice supports
development of intestinal inflammation
Version: 2Date:1 January 2012
Reviewer: Alex Sánchez-Pla
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Dear Sirs
I have been asked to provide my statistical opinion about the analyses performed
in this paper.
The statistics support of this work seems very weak and the few references
made to statistical tests are difficult to link with the results.
For instance a reference to Kruskal Walllis and two way ANOVA are done.
But details of why they have decided to perform each one, or which are the
ANOVA factors, or where do these tests apply are either difficult to find or
unexistant.
The statistical support in this work has two main drawbacks that should be
remedied:
- Information about the experimental design is missing: how many animals have
been allocated to each treatment, and why this number has been chosen ("a
minimum of 5" may mean 5 or 50)
- For each comparison where a statement of difference is made in the results
part there should be information available on which test has been used and on
the results of the test (for instance the p-value) that lead to a decision of
significant difference.
- Statistical methods should be referenced in the methods part of the paper.
Without having to go into detail there should be some explanation of why a
method is chosen (why Kruskal wallis instead of anova?) or how is it applied (if a
two factor anova is used there should be an explanation of which are the factors
in the model.
It should be informative if the comparisons and their results where shown in a
tabular form. If the authors prefer to rely on plots, clear reference to the tests and
the results should appear in the caption of the figures. In this case the tables may
be provided as suplementary material.
In summary in my opinion there is need and place for a clear improvement in
both the statistical methods and the use of statistical results in the paper.
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