Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis as a Cause of Non -Helicobact er pylori, Non -gastrotoxic Drug 
Ulce rs in Children  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This man uscript reported that the etiology of peptic ulcers has changed from previous reports and 
EoGE have been increasing as a cause of peptic ulcers. However, the information in this paper 
was inadequate and major revise may be needed to accept this journal.  
 
1. Page 2 line27, Page 8 line 48, Page 9 line 18, Table 1, table 2; The comparison was 
performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the five groups. 
However, since the analysis was only for a significant difference somewhere in the five groups, 
it was not clear which group had a significant difference. In order to accurately determine a 
significant difference, a significant difference test should be performed for each group, and data 
between groups having significant differences should be generated. For example, the comparison 
between the EoGE group and the other groups should be described as having a significant 
difference.  
 
2. Page 2 line 42, Page 12 line 29, Page 13 line 29; In the results, comparison was made 
between the EoGE group and the non -EoGE group. However, a reviewer could not understand 
that authors suddenly mentioned the numerical value in NHGN -PU in the conclusion. Authors 
should have unified with either.  
 
3. Page 4 line 51, Page 8 line 8; The definition of group A was not explicitly mentioned. 
The author should mention that the period during which patients was taking gastrotoxic drugs, 
the period from after taking i t to the endoscopic examination.  
 
4. Page 8 line 25, Figure; Authors noted that EoGE had been considered from 2011. 
However, because this study was a retrospective study, it was needed to reconfirm all 
pathological specimens from 2003 to 2010.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conc lusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this 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 applying 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 y ou 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 yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declar e that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted f or 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 that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis as a Cause of Non -Helicobact er pylori, Non -gastrotoxic Drug 
Ulce rs in Children  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This man uscript reported that the etiology of peptic ulcers has changed from previous reports and 
EoGE have been increasing as a cause of peptic ulcers. However, the information in this paper 
was inadequate and major revise may be needed to accept this journal.  
 
1. Page 2 line27, Page 8 line 48, Page 9 line 18, Table 1, table 2; The comparison was 
performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the five groups. 
However, since the analysis was only for a significant difference somewhere in the five groups, 
it was not clear which group had a significant difference. In order to accurately determine a 
significant difference, a significant difference test should be performed for each group, and data 
between groups having significant differences should be generated. For example, the comparison 
between the EoGE group and the other groups should be described as having a significant 
difference.  
 
2. Page 2 line 42, Page 12 line 29, Page 13 line 29; In the results, comparison was made 
between the EoGE group and the non -EoGE group. However, a reviewer could not understand 
that authors suddenly mentioned the numerical value in NHGN -PU in the conclusion. Authors 
should have unified with either.  
 
3. Page 4 line 51, Page 8 line 8; The definition of group A was not explicitly mentioned. 
The author should mention that the period during which patients was taking gastrotoxic drugs, 
the period from after taking i t to the endoscopic examination.  
 
4. Page 8 line 25, Figure; Authors noted that EoGE had been considered from 2011. 
However, because this study was a retrospective study, it was needed to reconfirm all 
pathological specimens from 2003 to 2010.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conc lusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this 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 applying 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 y ou 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 yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declar e that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted f or 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 that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis as a Cause of Non -Helicobact er pylori, Non -gastrotoxic Drug 
Ulce rs in Children  
 
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This man uscript reported that the etiology of peptic ulcers has changed from previous reports and 
EoGE have been increasing as a cause of peptic ulcers. However, the information in this paper 
was inadequate and major revise may be needed to accept this journal.  
 
1. Page 2 line27, Page 8 line 48, Page 9 line 18, Table 1, table 2; The comparison was 
performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the five groups. 
However, since the analysis was only for a significant difference somewhere in the five groups, 
it was not clear which group had a significant difference. In order to accurately determine a 
significant difference, a significant difference test should be performed for each group, and data 
between groups having significant differences should be generated. For example, the comparison 
between the EoGE group and the other groups should be described as having a significant 
difference.  
 
2. Page 2 line 42, Page 12 line 29, Page 13 line 29; In the results, comparison was made 
between the EoGE group and the non -EoGE group. However, a reviewer could not understand 
that authors suddenly mentioned the numerical value in NHGN -PU in the conclusion. Authors 
should have unified with either.  
 
3. Page 4 line 51, Page 8 line 8; The definition of group A was not explicitly mentioned. 
The author should mention that the period during which patients was taking gastrotoxic drugs, 
the period from after taking i t to the endoscopic examination.  
 
4. Page 8 line 25, Figure; Authors noted that EoGE had been considered from 2011. 
However, because this study was a retrospective study, it was needed to reconfirm all 
pathological specimens from 2003 to 2010.  
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conc lusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this 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 applying 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 y ou 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 yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declar e that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted f or 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 that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant