Reviewer's report
Title:A retrospective analysis of human cystic echinococcosis cases in
Heilongjiang Province, in the northeast of China
Version:1Date:21 December 2014
Reviewer: Christine Budke
Reviewer's report:
This study reports information on cases of cystic echinococcosis (CE) from a
region of China that is not considered highly endemic. Please find my specific
comments below.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In multiple locations throughout the manuscript, the authors make statements
regarding the accuracy of CT, ultrasound, and serological testing. However, the
authors need to clearly state that these diagnostic tests are being (presumably)
compared against the gold standard of histopathology.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Background, last paragraph- Do the estimated 0.6-1.3 million cases of
echinococcosis include both cases of cystic echinococcosis and alveolar
echinococcosis? Also, to what time period(s) do these values as well as the
livestock values in the next sentence refer?
2. Methods, Study location and screening of human CE cases- Are the two study
hospitals where most CE cases would be diagnosed/treated in Heilongjiang
Province?
3. Methods, Data collection- Does “living residence” refer to urban versus rural?
If so, this should be clarified.
4. Results, Age, gender and occupation of human CE patients- What is the
definition of “illiterate children”?
5. Result, Location, size, and number of cysts- The majority of the text, in this
section, is repetitive of what is presented in table 3. Therefore, the authors can
delete much of the text and just refer to the table.
6. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- It is not clear what the authors
mean by the statement, “For CE cases with cysts locating in lungs in this study,
three out of five cases and one out of three cases was compatible with the
results of histopathology after operation”. Please revise for clarity.
7. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- The authors state that one of the
cases of CE of the spleen was “probably diagnosed as CE by CT”. What do the
authors mean by “probably diagnosed”?
8. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- What serological test(s) was used
for the diagnosis of CE?
9. Please clarify if there were cases with cysts in more than one organ system.
This is alluded to in the discussion, but is not clear from table 3.
10. Table 2- What is the difference between “workers” and “employees”?
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Please consider shortening the discussion. It seems overly long in relation to
the scope of the paper.
2. Were the hepatic cysts staged using the WHO’s criteria? If available, this
would be interesting information.
3. A map and brief description of Heilongjiang Province would be helpful.
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:A retrospective analysis of human cystic echinococcosis cases in
Heilongjiang Province, in the northeast of China
Version:1Date:21 December 2014
Reviewer: Christine Budke
Reviewer's report:
This study reports information on cases of cystic echinococcosis (CE) from a
region of China that is not considered highly endemic. Please find my specific
comments below.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In multiple locations throughout the manuscript, the authors make statements
regarding the accuracy of CT, ultrasound, and serological testing. However, the
authors need to clearly state that these diagnostic tests are being (presumably)
compared against the gold standard of histopathology.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Background, last paragraph- Do the estimated 0.6-1.3 million cases of
echinococcosis include both cases of cystic echinococcosis and alveolar
echinococcosis? Also, to what time period(s) do these values as well as the
livestock values in the next sentence refer?
2. Methods, Study location and screening of human CE cases- Are the two study
hospitals where most CE cases would be diagnosed/treated in Heilongjiang
Province?
3. Methods, Data collection- Does “living residence” refer to urban versus rural?
If so, this should be clarified.
4. Results, Age, gender and occupation of human CE patients- What is the
definition of “illiterate children”?
5. Result, Location, size, and number of cysts- The majority of the text, in this
section, is repetitive of what is presented in table 3. Therefore, the authors can
delete much of the text and just refer to the table.
6. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- It is not clear what the authors
mean by the statement, “For CE cases with cysts locating in lungs in this study,
three out of five cases and one out of three cases was compatible with the
results of histopathology after operation”. Please revise for clarity.
7. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- The authors state that one of the
cases of CE of the spleen was “probably diagnosed as CE by CT”. What do the
authors mean by “probably diagnosed”?
8. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- What serological test(s) was used
for the diagnosis of CE?
9. Please clarify if there were cases with cysts in more than one organ system.
This is alluded to in the discussion, but is not clear from table 3.
10. Table 2- What is the difference between “workers” and “employees”?
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Please consider shortening the discussion. It seems overly long in relation to
the scope of the paper.
2. Were the hepatic cysts staged using the WHO’s criteria? If available, this
would be interesting information.
3. A map and brief description of Heilongjiang Province would be helpful.
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:A retrospective analysis of human cystic echinococcosis cases in
Heilongjiang Province, in the northeast of China
Version:1Date:21 December 2014
Reviewer: Christine Budke
Reviewer's report:
This study reports information on cases of cystic echinococcosis (CE) from a
region of China that is not considered highly endemic. Please find my specific
comments below.
Major Compulsory Revisions:
1. In multiple locations throughout the manuscript, the authors make statements
regarding the accuracy of CT, ultrasound, and serological testing. However, the
authors need to clearly state that these diagnostic tests are being (presumably)
compared against the gold standard of histopathology.
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Background, last paragraph- Do the estimated 0.6-1.3 million cases of
echinococcosis include both cases of cystic echinococcosis and alveolar
echinococcosis? Also, to what time period(s) do these values as well as the
livestock values in the next sentence refer?
2. Methods, Study location and screening of human CE cases- Are the two study
hospitals where most CE cases would be diagnosed/treated in Heilongjiang
Province?
3. Methods, Data collection- Does “living residence” refer to urban versus rural?
If so, this should be clarified.
4. Results, Age, gender and occupation of human CE patients- What is the
definition of “illiterate children”?
5. Result, Location, size, and number of cysts- The majority of the text, in this
section, is repetitive of what is presented in table 3. Therefore, the authors can
delete much of the text and just refer to the table.
6. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- It is not clear what the authors
mean by the statement, “For CE cases with cysts locating in lungs in this study,
three out of five cases and one out of three cases was compatible with the
results of histopathology after operation”. Please revise for clarity.
7. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- The authors state that one of the
cases of CE of the spleen was “probably diagnosed as CE by CT”. What do the
authors mean by “probably diagnosed”?
8. Results, Evaluation of diagnosis methods- What serological test(s) was used
for the diagnosis of CE?
9. Please clarify if there were cases with cysts in more than one organ system.
This is alluded to in the discussion, but is not clear from table 3.
10. Table 2- What is the difference between “workers” and “employees”?
Discretionary Revisions:
1. Please consider shortening the discussion. It seems overly long in relation to
the scope of the paper.
2. Were the hepatic cysts staged using the WHO’s criteria? If available, this
would be interesting information.
3. A map and brief description of Heilongjiang Province would be helpful.
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