Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection: Approach of primary care physicians in a
developing country
Version: 3Date:10 January 2009
Reviewer: Andrew S Day
Reviewer's report:
The authors have improved the manuscript following review of the reviewers'
comments.
1. Unfortunately, the authors appear to have mis-interpreted my comment about
the presentation of Helicobacter pylori (and H. pylori). This bacterial name should
be italicised in every instance.
2. I would suggest that the authors report the percentage of practitioners who
completed the questionnaires out of the total who were asked to complete them
(i.e. the response rate).
3. I assume that the 509 physicians who were given the questions to answer
were a convenience sample. Are the authors confident that this group represents
the total group of over 4000 primary care physicians in Karachi? If this group of
591 are the doctors who attend CME, perhaps the knowledge of this group is
vastly different to the other doctors?
4. I am unclear of the rationale for the adjustment in the sample size based on
the population of physicians in Karachi.
5. The authors have improved the language and grammar throughout the
manuscript, but there remain a number of errors that require attention.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection: Approach of primary care physicians in a
developing country
Version: 3Date:10 January 2009
Reviewer: Andrew S Day
Reviewer's report:
The authors have improved the manuscript following review of the reviewers'
comments.
1. Unfortunately, the authors appear to have mis-interpreted my comment about
the presentation of Helicobacter pylori (and H. pylori). This bacterial name should
be italicised in every instance.
2. I would suggest that the authors report the percentage of practitioners who
completed the questionnaires out of the total who were asked to complete them
(i.e. the response rate).
3. I assume that the 509 physicians who were given the questions to answer
were a convenience sample. Are the authors confident that this group represents
the total group of over 4000 primary care physicians in Karachi? If this group of
591 are the doctors who attend CME, perhaps the knowledge of this group is
vastly different to the other doctors?
4. I am unclear of the rationale for the adjustment in the sample size based on
the population of physicians in Karachi.
5. The authors have improved the language and grammar throughout the
manuscript, but there remain a number of errors that require attention.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Helicobacter pylori infection: Approach of primary care physicians in a
developing country
Version: 3Date:10 January 2009
Reviewer: Andrew S Day
Reviewer's report:
The authors have improved the manuscript following review of the reviewers'
comments.
1. Unfortunately, the authors appear to have mis-interpreted my comment about
the presentation of Helicobacter pylori (and H. pylori). This bacterial name should
be italicised in every instance.
2. I would suggest that the authors report the percentage of practitioners who
completed the questionnaires out of the total who were asked to complete them
(i.e. the response rate).
3. I assume that the 509 physicians who were given the questions to answer
were a convenience sample. Are the authors confident that this group represents
the total group of over 4000 primary care physicians in Karachi? If this group of
591 are the doctors who attend CME, perhaps the knowledge of this group is
vastly different to the other doctors?
4. I am unclear of the rationale for the adjustment in the sample size based on
the population of physicians in Karachi.
5. The authors have improved the language and grammar throughout the
manuscript, but there remain a number of errors that require attention.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant