Reviewer's report 
 Role of rapid urease test and histopathology in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in Title: 
a developing country 
 3  7 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Max Bulsara Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am happy with the statistical content and calculations of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, LR- and 
LR+. 
However in the Abstract the Conclusion reads "... rapid urease test was significantly reduced..." I am 
not sure how the authors arrived at this as no formal statistical test was carried out. 
I should also draw your attention to the small sample sizes. Although I am not am advocate of 
calculating retrospective sample sizes, the authors do need to comment on this as the results are far 
from been generalizable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 
 Role of rapid urease test and histopathology in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in Title: 
a developing country 
 3  7 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Max Bulsara Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am happy with the statistical content and calculations of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, LR- and 
LR+. 
However in the Abstract the Conclusion reads "... rapid urease test was significantly reduced..." I am 
not sure how the authors arrived at this as no formal statistical test was carried out. 
I should also draw your attention to the small sample sizes. Although I am not am advocate of 
calculating retrospective sample sizes, the authors do need to comment on this as the results are far 
from been generalizable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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 
 Role of rapid urease test and histopathology in the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in Title: 
a developing country 
 3  7 October 2005 Version: Date: 
 Max Bulsara Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
I am happy with the statistical content and calculations of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, LR- and 
LR+. 
However in the Abstract the Conclusion reads "... rapid urease test was significantly reduced..." I am 
not sure how the authors arrived at this as no formal statistical test was carried out. 
I should also draw your attention to the small sample sizes. Although I am not am advocate of 
calculating retrospective sample sizes, the authors do need to comment on this as the results are far 
from been generalizable. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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