Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 5 years after giardiasis: differential diagnoses,
characteristics and natural course
Version: 3Date:19 November 2012
Reviewer: Fumiharu Togo
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Meaning of “natural course” is still uncleared. What is your definition of the term?
In the response letter, authors state "However, the study was not designed to
evaluate
effect of previous treatment, and these data are not presented." However, the
authors examined
changes of fatigue during 2 years among patients and sample size is too small to
generalize the results.
So what does this study evaluate?
In the method section, the authors also state "as an optional part of the study, the
patients were offered treatment consisting of
randomisation into two different treatment programs performed by psychiatrists.",
which is a kind
of intervention on fatigue level and effects on results of this paper.
Although, it is not clear whether patients in this study received the treatment
program,
treatment for the patients from 3 to 5 years after giardiasis should be described.
In the response letter, authors state "A cut-off of 15 was used in order to exclude
those who had
very mild self-reported fatigue between 11 and 14." Please add this in the
method section and cite
previous studies which define that scores < 15 is "very mild fatigue".
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 5 years after giardiasis: differential diagnoses,
characteristics and natural course
Version: 3Date:19 November 2012
Reviewer: Fumiharu Togo
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Meaning of “natural course” is still uncleared. What is your definition of the term?
In the response letter, authors state "However, the study was not designed to
evaluate
effect of previous treatment, and these data are not presented." However, the
authors examined
changes of fatigue during 2 years among patients and sample size is too small to
generalize the results.
So what does this study evaluate?
In the method section, the authors also state "as an optional part of the study, the
patients were offered treatment consisting of
randomisation into two different treatment programs performed by psychiatrists.",
which is a kind
of intervention on fatigue level and effects on results of this paper.
Although, it is not clear whether patients in this study received the treatment
program,
treatment for the patients from 3 to 5 years after giardiasis should be described.
In the response letter, authors state "A cut-off of 15 was used in order to exclude
those who had
very mild self-reported fatigue between 11 and 14." Please add this in the
method section and cite
previous studies which define that scores < 15 is "very mild fatigue".
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 5 years after giardiasis: differential diagnoses,
characteristics and natural course
Version: 3Date:19 November 2012
Reviewer: Fumiharu Togo
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
Meaning of “natural course” is still uncleared. What is your definition of the term?
In the response letter, authors state "However, the study was not designed to
evaluate
effect of previous treatment, and these data are not presented." However, the
authors examined
changes of fatigue during 2 years among patients and sample size is too small to
generalize the results.
So what does this study evaluate?
In the method section, the authors also state "as an optional part of the study, the
patients were offered treatment consisting of
randomisation into two different treatment programs performed by psychiatrists.",
which is a kind
of intervention on fatigue level and effects on results of this paper.
Although, it is not clear whether patients in this study received the treatment
program,
treatment for the patients from 3 to 5 years after giardiasis should be described.
In the response letter, authors state "A cut-off of 15 was used in order to exclude
those who had
very mild self-reported fatigue between 11 and 14." Please add this in the
method section and cite
previous studies which define that scores < 15 is "very mild fatigue".
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant