Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  4 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexander Rosemurgy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have reviewed the manuscript and feel that the manuscript has several needs. 
First, I want to congratulate the authors on there efforts on behalf of the scholarly publication. 
The manuscript needs some editing. There are typographical errors, there are several misspellings. 
There are punctuations errors. There are some errors of format. Spell check should be utilized and 
the manuscript should be reviewed for specific details. For example, the first sentence in the conclusions on page 10 begins with the word “it”. The I should be capitalized. 
In this study, roughly 200 patients half of them women underwent dilation and or botox for treatment 
of achalasia. It is not clear as to how many patient may have undergone more than one dilation or 
more than one botox injection. It is not clear as to how the therapy was chosen and results after 
treatments are not noted in the manuscript. 
I also note that dyphagia seems notable after therapy. This is noted in table four. Also regurgitation is 
notable. 
Also, the significance of the manuscript is not stated. The general affect on clinical feature of 
achalasia are actually quite insignificant the only difference being that women have more chest pain 
before and after myotomy as well, age is a factor as patients older than 56 have less chest pain. 
Possibility this is a consequence of very few questions being asked as it appears the questionnaire 
was not extensive. 
I do not feel that the priority on this publication would be very high. As a minimum request that the 
manuscript be reviewed for grammatical errors and format. 
The choice of therapies is interesting as opposed to myotomy and it would be interesting to have the 
author’s comments as to why they chose dilation and botox for therapy for these patients. 
It was an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to review this manuscript and I certainly 
would be happy to discuss this or work with the authors in any way that I may be helpful to you and 
to them. My comments are meant to be constructive. I commend the authors on there efforts. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  4 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexander Rosemurgy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have reviewed the manuscript and feel that the manuscript has several needs. 
First, I want to congratulate the authors on there efforts on behalf of the scholarly publication. 
The manuscript needs some editing. There are typographical errors, there are several misspellings. 
There are punctuations errors. There are some errors of format. Spell check should be utilized and 
the manuscript should be reviewed for specific details. For example, the first sentence in the conclusions on page 10 begins with the word “it”. The I should be capitalized. 
In this study, roughly 200 patients half of them women underwent dilation and or botox for treatment 
of achalasia. It is not clear as to how many patient may have undergone more than one dilation or 
more than one botox injection. It is not clear as to how the therapy was chosen and results after 
treatments are not noted in the manuscript. 
I also note that dyphagia seems notable after therapy. This is noted in table four. Also regurgitation is 
notable. 
Also, the significance of the manuscript is not stated. The general affect on clinical feature of 
achalasia are actually quite insignificant the only difference being that women have more chest pain 
before and after myotomy as well, age is a factor as patients older than 56 have less chest pain. 
Possibility this is a consequence of very few questions being asked as it appears the questionnaire 
was not extensive. 
I do not feel that the priority on this publication would be very high. As a minimum request that the 
manuscript be reviewed for grammatical errors and format. 
The choice of therapies is interesting as opposed to myotomy and it would be interesting to have the 
author’s comments as to why they chose dilation and botox for therapy for these patients. 
It was an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to review this manuscript and I certainly 
would be happy to discuss this or work with the authors in any way that I may be helpful to you and 
to them. My comments are meant to be constructive. I commend the authors on there efforts. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Gender affects on clinical features of achalasia: a prospective study Title: 
 1  4 January 2006 Version: Date: 
 Alexander Rosemurgy Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I have reviewed the manuscript and feel that the manuscript has several needs. 
First, I want to congratulate the authors on there efforts on behalf of the scholarly publication. 
The manuscript needs some editing. There are typographical errors, there are several misspellings. 
There are punctuations errors. There are some errors of format. Spell check should be utilized and 
the manuscript should be reviewed for specific details. For example, the first sentence in the conclusions on page 10 begins with the word “it”. The I should be capitalized. 
In this study, roughly 200 patients half of them women underwent dilation and or botox for treatment 
of achalasia. It is not clear as to how many patient may have undergone more than one dilation or 
more than one botox injection. It is not clear as to how the therapy was chosen and results after 
treatments are not noted in the manuscript. 
I also note that dyphagia seems notable after therapy. This is noted in table four. Also regurgitation is 
notable. 
Also, the significance of the manuscript is not stated. The general affect on clinical feature of 
achalasia are actually quite insignificant the only difference being that women have more chest pain 
before and after myotomy as well, age is a factor as patients older than 56 have less chest pain. 
Possibility this is a consequence of very few questions being asked as it appears the questionnaire 
was not extensive. 
I do not feel that the priority on this publication would be very high. As a minimum request that the 
manuscript be reviewed for grammatical errors and format. 
The choice of therapies is interesting as opposed to myotomy and it would be interesting to have the 
author’s comments as to why they chose dilation and botox for therapy for these patients. 
It was an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to review this manuscript and I certainly 
would be happy to discuss this or work with the authors in any way that I may be helpful to you and 
to them. My comments are meant to be constructive. I commend the authors on there efforts. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
assistant