Reviewer's report
Title:Alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark - population-based incidence, prevalence,
and hospitalization rates between 1988 and 2005: a descriptive cohort study
Version: 1Date:18 October 2007
Reviewer: Mats Ramstedt
Reviewer's report:
General remarks and suggested major revisions
This study address an important issue namely how cirrhosis morbidity (incidence,
prevalence, and hospitalisation rates) have developed in Denmark during the
past 15-20 years. It shows that the development is different across age groups
with increasing rates among those above 65 years, declining rates in the younger
population and stable rates in the age group 50-64 years.
My main concern with the paper is the lack of putting the results in a broader
context and that there is too little attempt to explain the revealed age-specific
patterns:
• Do these age-specific trends mean that alcohol-harm in general has developed
differently across age groups, do other harm indicators confirm the pattern or are
they only relevent to alcoholic cirrhosis?
• What are the possible explanations for these age-specific differences, for
instance the decline in younger age groups? A higher ambition with respect to
explaining the results are needed in terms of possible cohort effects (is it really a
cohort study as the title suggests?), consequences of policy changes etc..
• I also miss a more comprenesive and detailed description of the survey findings
the authors refer to that show a similar age-specific pattern with respect to
self-reported alcohol consumption. When were they conducted and in what way
too the results match (or not match) the cirrhosis results?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions
• The difference between incidence, prevalence and hospitalisation rates needs
to be more clearly explained.
• The information presented in the graphs are very difficult to follow and I suggest
that they must be revised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark - population-based incidence, prevalence,
and hospitalization rates between 1988 and 2005: a descriptive cohort study
Version: 1Date:18 October 2007
Reviewer: Mats Ramstedt
Reviewer's report:
General remarks and suggested major revisions
This study address an important issue namely how cirrhosis morbidity (incidence,
prevalence, and hospitalisation rates) have developed in Denmark during the
past 15-20 years. It shows that the development is different across age groups
with increasing rates among those above 65 years, declining rates in the younger
population and stable rates in the age group 50-64 years.
My main concern with the paper is the lack of putting the results in a broader
context and that there is too little attempt to explain the revealed age-specific
patterns:
• Do these age-specific trends mean that alcohol-harm in general has developed
differently across age groups, do other harm indicators confirm the pattern or are
they only relevent to alcoholic cirrhosis?
• What are the possible explanations for these age-specific differences, for
instance the decline in younger age groups? A higher ambition with respect to
explaining the results are needed in terms of possible cohort effects (is it really a
cohort study as the title suggests?), consequences of policy changes etc..
• I also miss a more comprenesive and detailed description of the survey findings
the authors refer to that show a similar age-specific pattern with respect to
self-reported alcohol consumption. When were they conducted and in what way
too the results match (or not match) the cirrhosis results?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions
• The difference between incidence, prevalence and hospitalisation rates needs
to be more clearly explained.
• The information presented in the graphs are very difficult to follow and I suggest
that they must be revised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Alcoholic cirrhosis in Denmark - population-based incidence, prevalence,
and hospitalization rates between 1988 and 2005: a descriptive cohort study
Version: 1Date:18 October 2007
Reviewer: Mats Ramstedt
Reviewer's report:
General remarks and suggested major revisions
This study address an important issue namely how cirrhosis morbidity (incidence,
prevalence, and hospitalisation rates) have developed in Denmark during the
past 15-20 years. It shows that the development is different across age groups
with increasing rates among those above 65 years, declining rates in the younger
population and stable rates in the age group 50-64 years.
My main concern with the paper is the lack of putting the results in a broader
context and that there is too little attempt to explain the revealed age-specific
patterns:
• Do these age-specific trends mean that alcohol-harm in general has developed
differently across age groups, do other harm indicators confirm the pattern or are
they only relevent to alcoholic cirrhosis?
• What are the possible explanations for these age-specific differences, for
instance the decline in younger age groups? A higher ambition with respect to
explaining the results are needed in terms of possible cohort effects (is it really a
cohort study as the title suggests?), consequences of policy changes etc..
• I also miss a more comprenesive and detailed description of the survey findings
the authors refer to that show a similar age-specific pattern with respect to
self-reported alcohol consumption. When were they conducted and in what way
too the results match (or not match) the cirrhosis results?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions
• The difference between incidence, prevalence and hospitalisation rates needs
to be more clearly explained.
• The information presented in the graphs are very difficult to follow and I suggest
that they must be revised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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