Reviewer's report
Title:Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A
reappraisal at 7 years of age.
Version: 4Date:19 February 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
The study of Poynard and colleagues is based on a very large database of
Fibrotest done over a period of 7 years. The main concept of the paper is to
characterize the causes of false positive-false negative and the overall
applicability of this non-invasive marker of liver fibrosis. The study is well
conducted and interesting. I have few minor concerns.
1) the interval between Fibrotest and liver biopsy was up to 5 years. This seems
to me a very general and even too large interval. The authors should clarify in
how many cases the interval was more than 1 year, as liver fibrosis situation may
have been evolved.
2) the reference standard could also been liver stiffness measurement. In how
many cases the reference standard was indeed LSM? The authors should add in
the methods the precautions according to the manufacturer to have a reliable
result with liver stiffness measurement.
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:Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A
reappraisal at 7 years of age.
Version: 4Date:19 February 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
The study of Poynard and colleagues is based on a very large database of
Fibrotest done over a period of 7 years. The main concept of the paper is to
characterize the causes of false positive-false negative and the overall
applicability of this non-invasive marker of liver fibrosis. The study is well
conducted and interesting. I have few minor concerns.
1) the interval between Fibrotest and liver biopsy was up to 5 years. This seems
to me a very general and even too large interval. The authors should clarify in
how many cases the interval was more than 1 year, as liver fibrosis situation may
have been evolved.
2) the reference standard could also been liver stiffness measurement. In how
many cases the reference standard was indeed LSM? The authors should add in
the methods the precautions according to the manufacturer to have a reliable
result with liver stiffness measurement.
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:Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A
reappraisal at 7 years of age.
Version: 4Date:19 February 2011
Reviewer: giada Sebastiani
Reviewer's report:
The study of Poynard and colleagues is based on a very large database of
Fibrotest done over a period of 7 years. The main concept of the paper is to
characterize the causes of false positive-false negative and the overall
applicability of this non-invasive marker of liver fibrosis. The study is well
conducted and interesting. I have few minor concerns.
1) the interval between Fibrotest and liver biopsy was up to 5 years. This seems
to me a very general and even too large interval. The authors should clarify in
how many cases the interval was more than 1 year, as liver fibrosis situation may
have been evolved.
2) the reference standard could also been liver stiffness measurement. In how
many cases the reference standard was indeed LSM? The authors should add in
the methods the precautions according to the manufacturer to have a reliable
result with liver stiffness measurement.
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