Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 5 years after giardiasis: differential diagnoses,
characteristics and natural course
Version: 3Date:8 November 2012
Reviewer: Eva Libman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is more clearly written, and the authors have taken into account
most of the reviewer commentaries.
There is still some additional clarification needed:
1. The definition of CFS (p4) - diachotomized....added score..is not easily
understood (minor point)
2. Although the very low participation rate is now included as a "limitation", I think
the implications for interpretation of the data from this very small and
unrepresentative sample need to be elaborated (minor essential revision)
2, In the Discussion (p8) the authors talk about a control group. Such a group
was not mentioned previously and needs to be either elaborated in the Methods
section or otherwise clarified (major essential revision).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 5 years after giardiasis: differential diagnoses,
characteristics and natural course
Version: 3Date:8 November 2012
Reviewer: Eva Libman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is more clearly written, and the authors have taken into account
most of the reviewer commentaries.
There is still some additional clarification needed:
1. The definition of CFS (p4) - diachotomized....added score..is not easily
understood (minor point)
2. Although the very low participation rate is now included as a "limitation", I think
the implications for interpretation of the data from this very small and
unrepresentative sample need to be elaborated (minor essential revision)
2, In the Discussion (p8) the authors talk about a control group. Such a group
was not mentioned previously and needs to be either elaborated in the Methods
section or otherwise clarified (major essential revision).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
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:8 November 2012
Reviewer: Eva Libman
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript is more clearly written, and the authors have taken into account
most of the reviewer commentaries.
There is still some additional clarification needed:
1. The definition of CFS (p4) - diachotomized....added score..is not easily
understood (minor point)
2. Although the very low participation rate is now included as a "limitation", I think
the implications for interpretation of the data from this very small and
unrepresentative sample need to be elaborated (minor essential revision)
2, In the Discussion (p8) the authors talk about a control group. Such a group
was not mentioned previously and needs to be either elaborated in the Methods
section or otherwise clarified (major essential revision).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no competing interests
assistant