275 / 328
ER 6
No, The described scope and applicability of the kit is not supported for all the mentioned
matrices or big categories.
ER 7
Yes
ER 8
No, no surface swab data. No data or reference cited to claim no high-dose hook effect in page
3, line 82.
Supporting Data and information: Does data collected support the criteria given in the collaborative study
protocol?
ER 1
Yes
ER 2
no
ER 3
No protocol was provided to the ERP
ER 4
Yes
ER 5
Yes
ER 6
The ERP was not consulted in creating protocols for the study. I am not finding those ready
accessible.
ER 7
Yes
ER 8
No, no surface swab data. No data or reference cited to claim no high-dose hook effect in page
3, line 82.
Are there any concerns regarding the safety of the method?
ER 1
No
ER 2
none
ER 3
no
ER 4
No
ER 5
So far no comments, all necessary precautions are well described
ER 6
Yes, the use of ethanol and the cocktail may have some safety issues but those have been
addressed by the authors in the manuscript.
ER 7
NA
ER 8
No
Are there any concerns regarding the data manipulation, data tables, or statistical analysis?
ER 1
No
ER 2
Yes, the authors undermine the statistical evaluation when an excuse is given that two samples
were 'apparently' swapped by a lab instead of accepting the results and performing the
statistical analysis.
ER 3
Yes - need to consult Stats Committee for further discussion of the procedures given here.
ER 4
No
ER 5
Some of the tables need editing (titles look blurred sometimes)
ER 6
The data presented in Table 2 suggest that for the sample 5 three of the labs. Could not detect it
positive in most of their tested 10 replicates (0-1 out of 10) whereas the remaining labs did
report 7-10 positives out of tested 10 replicates of the sample. The sample contains 3.2 mg
gliadin/kg. The Result Reporting section of the manuscript states that a negative result is
ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES
235