Reviewer's report
Title:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 2Date:25 January 2008
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
I would want the authors to explain briefly what the concept of "integrated acidity"
is, what it means and how it is measured in the method section, in stead of
simply referring to "previously published" material. And I would like to read how
this is related to other ways of classifying pathologic reflux (SSI, SAP etc) either
in the methods section, or in the discussion, to be able to put their findings in
perspective.
Secondly it seems important to be able to read clearly what the relevance of the
misclassification issue that this manuscript tells us about, is from a clinical point
of view. I can live with a discussion on diagnostic test characteristics too, but nor
the diagnostic nor the prognostic meaning of their findings is described clearly in
the text.
Minor Essential Revisions
I would want to see the most relevant ROC-curves in the manuscript, in stead of
only mentioning AUC's in tables as the authors do now.
Discretionary Revisions
Relatively correct language use. However, discussion section might be shortened
by more concise writing.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 2Date:25 January 2008
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
I would want the authors to explain briefly what the concept of "integrated acidity"
is, what it means and how it is measured in the method section, in stead of
simply referring to "previously published" material. And I would like to read how
this is related to other ways of classifying pathologic reflux (SSI, SAP etc) either
in the methods section, or in the discussion, to be able to put their findings in
perspective.
Secondly it seems important to be able to read clearly what the relevance of the
misclassification issue that this manuscript tells us about, is from a clinical point
of view. I can live with a discussion on diagnostic test characteristics too, but nor
the diagnostic nor the prognostic meaning of their findings is described clearly in
the text.
Minor Essential Revisions
I would want to see the most relevant ROC-curves in the manuscript, in stead of
only mentioning AUC's in tables as the authors do now.
Discretionary Revisions
Relatively correct language use. However, discussion section might be shortened
by more concise writing.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Time Esophageal pH<4 Overestimates the Prevalence of Pathologic
Esophageal Reflux in Subjects with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treated
with Proton Pump Inhibitors
Version: 2Date:25 January 2008
Reviewer: Mattijs E Numans
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
I would want the authors to explain briefly what the concept of "integrated acidity"
is, what it means and how it is measured in the method section, in stead of
simply referring to "previously published" material. And I would like to read how
this is related to other ways of classifying pathologic reflux (SSI, SAP etc) either
in the methods section, or in the discussion, to be able to put their findings in
perspective.
Secondly it seems important to be able to read clearly what the relevance of the
misclassification issue that this manuscript tells us about, is from a clinical point
of view. I can live with a discussion on diagnostic test characteristics too, but nor
the diagnostic nor the prognostic meaning of their findings is described clearly in
the text.
Minor Essential Revisions
I would want to see the most relevant ROC-curves in the manuscript, in stead of
only mentioning AUC's in tables as the authors do now.
Discretionary Revisions
Relatively correct language use. However, discussion section might be shortened
by more concise writing.
What next?: Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have
responded to the major compulsory revisions
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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