Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from celiac patients: need for
different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:2Date:11 January 2015
Reviewer: Jonas Ludvigsson
Reviewer's report:
General comments
The aim of this paper is interesting. I have not come across it before. Good!
MAJOR COMPULSORY CHANGES
The language needs to be revised by a professional language reviewer.
abstract. the results section is unclear, please clarify
The authors do not present all data for the ”second method” but only data on
those 11 who retained the same Marsh-Oberhuber scale.
did you use mann-whitney test for multiple-comparison analyses - how?
Discussion. please comment more on potential weaknesses of your study.
MINOR ESSENTIAL
the authors speak of hallmark for celiac disease pathology. were an of the
hallmarks absolute requirements for a diagnosis of CD ? [e.g. villous atrophy]?
methods
It seems patients consecutively included in the study? between what
years/dates?
please describe the Milano centre where the study was carried out?is this a
tertiary centre (if so describe selection bias in the discussion)
please list information about the ethics approval (any serial number?)
the authors describe that the biopsy data were examined by 2 independent
reviewer and that the ”mean value ” was considered, what mean value??
what is ”short villi” - please define.
do you mean that you had a kappa value >80, or what was the kappa value?
please clarify. or do you mean you had a kappa value of 0.91!!?
please change the word paucisymptomatic. It is not part of the international
vocabulary, seems more Italian to me.
DISCRETIONARY
Minor Row 231: . ”Whn”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no conflict of interest.
Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from celiac patients: need for
different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:2Date:11 January 2015
Reviewer: Jonas Ludvigsson
Reviewer's report:
General comments
The aim of this paper is interesting. I have not come across it before. Good!
MAJOR COMPULSORY CHANGES
The language needs to be revised by a professional language reviewer.
abstract. the results section is unclear, please clarify
The authors do not present all data for the ”second method” but only data on
those 11 who retained the same Marsh-Oberhuber scale.
did you use mann-whitney test for multiple-comparison analyses - how?
Discussion. please comment more on potential weaknesses of your study.
MINOR ESSENTIAL
the authors speak of hallmark for celiac disease pathology. were an of the
hallmarks absolute requirements for a diagnosis of CD ? [e.g. villous atrophy]?
methods
It seems patients consecutively included in the study? between what
years/dates?
please describe the Milano centre where the study was carried out?is this a
tertiary centre (if so describe selection bias in the discussion)
please list information about the ethics approval (any serial number?)
the authors describe that the biopsy data were examined by 2 independent
reviewer and that the ”mean value ” was considered, what mean value??
what is ”short villi” - please define.
do you mean that you had a kappa value >80, or what was the kappa value?
please clarify. or do you mean you had a kappa value of 0.91!!?
please change the word paucisymptomatic. It is not part of the international
vocabulary, seems more Italian to me.
DISCRETIONARY
Minor Row 231: . ”Whn”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no conflict of interest.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Histological evaluation of duodenal biopsies from celiac patients: need for
different grading criteria during follow-up
Version:2Date:11 January 2015
Reviewer: Jonas Ludvigsson
Reviewer's report:
General comments
The aim of this paper is interesting. I have not come across it before. Good!
MAJOR COMPULSORY CHANGES
The language needs to be revised by a professional language reviewer.
abstract. the results section is unclear, please clarify
The authors do not present all data for the ”second method” but only data on
those 11 who retained the same Marsh-Oberhuber scale.
did you use mann-whitney test for multiple-comparison analyses - how?
Discussion. please comment more on potential weaknesses of your study.
MINOR ESSENTIAL
the authors speak of hallmark for celiac disease pathology. were an of the
hallmarks absolute requirements for a diagnosis of CD ? [e.g. villous atrophy]?
methods
It seems patients consecutively included in the study? between what
years/dates?
please describe the Milano centre where the study was carried out?is this a
tertiary centre (if so describe selection bias in the discussion)
please list information about the ethics approval (any serial number?)
the authors describe that the biopsy data were examined by 2 independent
reviewer and that the ”mean value ” was considered, what mean value??
what is ”short villi” - please define.
do you mean that you had a kappa value >80, or what was the kappa value?
please clarify. or do you mean you had a kappa value of 0.91!!?
please change the word paucisymptomatic. It is not part of the international
vocabulary, seems more Italian to me.
DISCRETIONARY
Minor Row 231: . ”Whn”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no conflict of interest.
assistant