Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of omeprazole, famotidine, mosapride and teprenone in patients
with upper gastrointestinal symptoms: an omeprazole-controlled randomized
study (J-FOCUS)
Version: 4Date:18 December 2011
Reviewer: Grigorios Leontiadis
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed adequately point #6 and point #8 adequately.
With regards to point #5, I still believe that the use of urine antibody test was
inappropriate, but it is not worth engaging in further exchange of arguments. My
understanding is that my thoughts will be published alongside the article. The
final decision rests with the Editors. I am confident that future readers will be able
to see that future guidelines will not propose this test for clinical use, let alone for
selection of participants in clinical trials. For the time being, a reasonable
compromise that will protect the reputation of BMC Gastroenterology, would be
to re-phrase the wording as follows:
“First, we used a urine antibody test to screen patients for evidence of H. pylori
infection. Although this test shows high sensitivity and accuracy specificity, it is
has not been recommended by guidelines as a screening test as yet. It is
possible that some patients without H. pylori infection were included in this
study.”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of omeprazole, famotidine, mosapride and teprenone in patients
with upper gastrointestinal symptoms: an omeprazole-controlled randomized
study (J-FOCUS)
Version: 4Date:18 December 2011
Reviewer: Grigorios Leontiadis
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed adequately point #6 and point #8 adequately.
With regards to point #5, I still believe that the use of urine antibody test was
inappropriate, but it is not worth engaging in further exchange of arguments. My
understanding is that my thoughts will be published alongside the article. The
final decision rests with the Editors. I am confident that future readers will be able
to see that future guidelines will not propose this test for clinical use, let alone for
selection of participants in clinical trials. For the time being, a reasonable
compromise that will protect the reputation of BMC Gastroenterology, would be
to re-phrase the wording as follows:
“First, we used a urine antibody test to screen patients for evidence of H. pylori
infection. Although this test shows high sensitivity and accuracy specificity, it is
has not been recommended by guidelines as a screening test as yet. It is
possible that some patients without H. pylori infection were included in this
study.”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Efficacy of omeprazole, famotidine, mosapride and teprenone in patients
with upper gastrointestinal symptoms: an omeprazole-controlled randomized
study (J-FOCUS)
Version: 4Date:18 December 2011
Reviewer: Grigorios Leontiadis
Reviewer's report:
The authors have addressed adequately point #6 and point #8 adequately.
With regards to point #5, I still believe that the use of urine antibody test was
inappropriate, but it is not worth engaging in further exchange of arguments. My
understanding is that my thoughts will be published alongside the article. The
final decision rests with the Editors. I am confident that future readers will be able
to see that future guidelines will not propose this test for clinical use, let alone for
selection of participants in clinical trials. For the time being, a reasonable
compromise that will protect the reputation of BMC Gastroenterology, would be
to re-phrase the wording as follows:
“First, we used a urine antibody test to screen patients for evidence of H. pylori
infection. Although this test shows high sensitivity and accuracy specificity, it is
has not been recommended by guidelines as a screening test as yet. It is
possible that some patients without H. pylori infection were included in this
study.”
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
None
assistant