Reviewer's report
Title:Montelukast in the treatment of duodenal eosinophilia in children with
dyspepsia: Effect on eosinophil density and activation in relation to
pharmacokinetics
Version: 1Date:16 February 2009
Reviewer: G Riccioni
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The question is well
defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The methods are
appropriate.
3. Are the data sound? Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? The discussion may be improved on the basis of the recents
published results.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? NO.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable? The manuscript need to English revision.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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' below.
Reviewer's report
Title:Montelukast in the treatment of duodenal eosinophilia in children with
dyspepsia: Effect on eosinophil density and activation in relation to
pharmacokinetics
Version: 1Date:16 February 2009
Reviewer: G Riccioni
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The question is well
defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The methods are
appropriate.
3. Are the data sound? Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? The discussion may be improved on the basis of the recents
published results.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? NO.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable? The manuscript need to English revision.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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' below.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Montelukast in the treatment of duodenal eosinophilia in children with
dyspepsia: Effect on eosinophil density and activation in relation to
pharmacokinetics
Version: 1Date:16 February 2009
Reviewer: G Riccioni
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? The question is well
defined.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? The methods are
appropriate.
3. Are the data sound? Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? The discussion may be improved on the basis of the recents
published results.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? NO.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable? The manuscript need to English revision.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest 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' below.
assistant