Reviewer's report
Title:Lipoprotein lipase activity and mass, apolipoprotein C-II mass and
polymorphisms of apolipoproteins E and A5 in subjects with prior acute
hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis
Version: 2Date:5 June 2009
Reviewer: Emilio Ros
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
The manuscript needs some language corrections,
Page 5. Because few relatives were available for lipid analyses, family history of
hyperlipidemia relied mainly in (should be “on”) patient’s recall.
Page 6. Where it says “Because our technique is not able to distinguish between
smaller chylomicrons and larger VLDL we call it chylomicron-like particles.” would
read better: “Because this technique cannot distinguish between smaller
chylomicrons and larger VLDL, the lipoprotein fraction obtained is named
chylomicron-like particles.”
From here on, chylomicrons should be named chylomicron-like particles
throughout the manuscript.
Page 8. “A positive family history for (should be “of”) hyperlipidaemia”
Page 10. Our patients with hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis due to LPL
deficiency were clinically different from “the others”... Substitute “others” for
“those with preserved LPL mass and activity…”
There are other parts in the additions in red or in the initial wording of the
manuscript where English can be improved (i.e., page 10, suggest using “onset”
instead of “debut”; page 11, inflammatory is misspelled as inflamatory).
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 have no competing interests to declare.
Reviewer's report
Title:Lipoprotein lipase activity and mass, apolipoprotein C-II mass and
polymorphisms of apolipoproteins E and A5 in subjects with prior acute
hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis
Version: 2Date:5 June 2009
Reviewer: Emilio Ros
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
The manuscript needs some language corrections,
Page 5. Because few relatives were available for lipid analyses, family history of
hyperlipidemia relied mainly in (should be “on”) patient’s recall.
Page 6. Where it says “Because our technique is not able to distinguish between
smaller chylomicrons and larger VLDL we call it chylomicron-like particles.” would
read better: “Because this technique cannot distinguish between smaller
chylomicrons and larger VLDL, the lipoprotein fraction obtained is named
chylomicron-like particles.”
From here on, chylomicrons should be named chylomicron-like particles
throughout the manuscript.
Page 8. “A positive family history for (should be “of”) hyperlipidaemia”
Page 10. Our patients with hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis due to LPL
deficiency were clinically different from “the others”... Substitute “others” for
“those with preserved LPL mass and activity…”
There are other parts in the additions in red or in the initial wording of the
manuscript where English can be improved (i.e., page 10, suggest using “onset”
instead of “debut”; page 11, inflammatory is misspelled as inflamatory).
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 have no competing interests to declare.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Lipoprotein lipase activity and mass, apolipoprotein C-II mass and
polymorphisms of apolipoproteins E and A5 in subjects with prior acute
hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis
Version: 2Date:5 June 2009
Reviewer: Emilio Ros
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions:
The manuscript needs some language corrections,
Page 5. Because few relatives were available for lipid analyses, family history of
hyperlipidemia relied mainly in (should be “on”) patient’s recall.
Page 6. Where it says “Because our technique is not able to distinguish between
smaller chylomicrons and larger VLDL we call it chylomicron-like particles.” would
read better: “Because this technique cannot distinguish between smaller
chylomicrons and larger VLDL, the lipoprotein fraction obtained is named
chylomicron-like particles.”
From here on, chylomicrons should be named chylomicron-like particles
throughout the manuscript.
Page 8. “A positive family history for (should be “of”) hyperlipidaemia”
Page 10. Our patients with hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis due to LPL
deficiency were clinically different from “the others”... Substitute “others” for
“those with preserved LPL mass and activity…”
There are other parts in the additions in red or in the initial wording of the
manuscript where English can be improved (i.e., page 10, suggest using “onset”
instead of “debut”; page 11, inflammatory is misspelled as inflamatory).
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 have no competing interests to declare.
assistant