Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0515-3 (2016)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Diagnostic performance of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of 
gastric intestinal metaplasia: a meta -analysis  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Feb 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Werner  Dolak  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a nice study reporting a meta -analysis on the dia gnostic accuracy of confocal laser 
endomicroscopy (CLE) in patients with intestinal metaplasia. The study provides a short but 
comprehensive overview on the issue of intestinal metaplasia and its risk for gastric malignancy, 
the methods used are appropriat e and exlained sufficiently, the conclusions underline the high 
potential of this novel diagnostic technique to optimize the management of high -risk patients. I 
have the following minor comments:  
 
1) I do not agree with the authors that there is no patient  selection bias in the underlying studies 
(as indicated in table 2) since all (!) trials involved patients with recently confirmed or previously 
diagnosed intestinal metaplasia. Of course, this has an impact on the diagnostic accuracy of CLE 
which should a t least be discussed in the manuscript.  
 
2) Two of the underlying studies of the meta -analysis (ref. 20 and 29) are not referenced 
correctly in the reference list as well as in table 1 and 2.  
 
3) The manuscript should be revised for (typing) errors, ideall y by a native English speaker, e.g. 
page 2 / line 36: wrong comma; line 42: new instead of newly; p8/l26: analyzed instead of 
analyze; l42: missing gap; p11/l3: diseases instead of disease; l45: images instead of imagines     
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend add itional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal