Title: EXTRA-ESOPHAGEAL SYMPTOMS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AND WITHOUT
EROSIVE ESOPHAGITIS: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY IN ALBANIA
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to assess the prevalence of extra-esophageal symptoms in individuals with and
those without erosive esophagitis, and elucidate independent factors related to the development
of extra-esophageal manifestations.
1) In method section (study design and data collection), the sentences regarding the informed
consent and ethical approval appeared twice (p.5, l.56-58, p.8, l.117-118).
2) In method section (study population), the authors stated that “two controls for each case were
targeted for recruitment among family members of the patients”. However, it should be clearly
mentioned how they were selected (the controls were selected among siblings or cousins who
were close in age?)
3) In result section, the number should be correctly rounded to the nearest whole number:
5.5%=6% (p.9, l.145), 60.4%=60% (p.9, l.147), 23.1%=23% (p.9, l.149), 2.75=2.8 (p.9, l.157).
4) Typographical errors
- “throat cleaning” appears in the manuscript several times, but it should be “throat clearing”.
- “controls s without” should be “control without” (p.11, 211)
Title: EXTRA-ESOPHAGEAL SYMPTOMS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AND WITHOUT
EROSIVE ESOPHAGITIS: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY IN ALBANIA
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to assess the prevalence of extra-esophageal symptoms in individuals with and
those without erosive esophagitis, and elucidate independent factors related to the development
of extra-esophageal manifestations.
1) In method section (study design and data collection), the sentences regarding the informed
consent and ethical approval appeared twice (p.5, l.56-58, p.8, l.117-118).
2) In method section (study population), the authors stated that “two controls for each case were
targeted for recruitment among family members of the patients”. However, it should be clearly
mentioned how they were selected (the controls were selected among siblings or cousins who
were close in age?)
3) In result section, the number should be correctly rounded to the nearest whole number:
5.5%=6% (p.9, l.145), 60.4%=60% (p.9, l.147), 23.1%=23% (p.9, l.149), 2.75=2.8 (p.9, l.157).
4) Typographical errors
- “throat cleaning” appears in the manuscript several times, but it should be “throat clearing”.
- “controls s without” should be “control without” (p.11, 211)
Please review this paper.
user
Title: EXTRA-ESOPHAGEAL SYMPTOMS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AND WITHOUT
EROSIVE ESOPHAGITIS: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY IN ALBANIA
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
This study aimed to assess the prevalence of extra-esophageal symptoms in individuals with and
those without erosive esophagitis, and elucidate independent factors related to the development
of extra-esophageal manifestations.
1) In method section (study design and data collection), the sentences regarding the informed
consent and ethical approval appeared twice (p.5, l.56-58, p.8, l.117-118).
2) In method section (study population), the authors stated that “two controls for each case were
targeted for recruitment among family members of the patients”. However, it should be clearly
mentioned how they were selected (the controls were selected among siblings or cousins who
were close in age?)
3) In result section, the number should be correctly rounded to the nearest whole number:
5.5%=6% (p.9, l.145), 60.4%=60% (p.9, l.147), 23.1%=23% (p.9, l.149), 2.75=2.8 (p.9, l.157).
4) Typographical errors
- “throat cleaning” appears in the manuscript several times, but it should be “throat clearing”.
- “controls s without” should be “control without” (p.11, 211)
assistant