Title: Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital cross-
sectional study.
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done to conduct this study and to prepare the
manuscript. This manuscript contributes to scientific knowledge in the management of patients
with peptic ulcer disease in Uganda, the East African region and Africa. I however have several
comments and suggestions to make the manuscript more robust and contribute to the body of
knowledge.
General comments:  There are several spelling and grammatical errors which should be
addressed by the authors.
Methodology: The methods and materials section is well done. However, the following
information is important:
1. Study design
The study design described is more of a retrospective study design because the data was
abstracted from the study participants files. The data on the patterns of the peptic ulcers is
routinely collected in each of these sites. Is this the case? It should be clarified
2. Study procedures
- What was the specific qualification of the surgeons who performed the surgery? The providers
who offered care was described but the specific provider who did the surgeries is not indicated.
This is important to ensure the validity of the data of the patterns of perforated peptic ulcers.
- Was the pattern of all peptic ulcer perforations recorded intraoperatively presumptively and
only those who consented to the study had their data included in the study or is recording of the
patterns done routinely as part of standard of care? If this is the case, it should clearly be stated.
How was the study coordinated between the various sites?
Discussion/Conclusion
- what is the significance of this study to the surgeons? This should be discussed and emphasized
Title: Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital cross-
sectional study.
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done to conduct this study and to prepare the
manuscript. This manuscript contributes to scientific knowledge in the management of patients
with peptic ulcer disease in Uganda, the East African region and Africa. I however have several
comments and suggestions to make the manuscript more robust and contribute to the body of
knowledge.
General comments:  There are several spelling and grammatical errors which should be
addressed by the authors.
Methodology: The methods and materials section is well done. However, the following
information is important:
1. Study design
The study design described is more of a retrospective study design because the data was
abstracted from the study participants files. The data on the patterns of the peptic ulcers is
routinely collected in each of these sites. Is this the case? It should be clarified
2. Study procedures
- What was the specific qualification of the surgeons who performed the surgery? The providers
who offered care was described but the specific provider who did the surgeries is not indicated.
This is important to ensure the validity of the data of the patterns of perforated peptic ulcers.
- Was the pattern of all peptic ulcer perforations recorded intraoperatively presumptively and
only those who consented to the study had their data included in the study or is recording of the
patterns done routinely as part of standard of care? If this is the case, it should clearly be stated.
How was the study coordinated between the various sites?
Discussion/Conclusion
- what is the significance of this study to the surgeons? This should be discussed and emphasized
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Factors associated with peptic ulcer perforations in Uganda: a multi-hospital cross-
sectional study.
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors
I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done to conduct this study and to prepare the
manuscript. This manuscript contributes to scientific knowledge in the management of patients
with peptic ulcer disease in Uganda, the East African region and Africa. I however have several
comments and suggestions to make the manuscript more robust and contribute to the body of
knowledge.
General comments:  There are several spelling and grammatical errors which should be
addressed by the authors.
Methodology: The methods and materials section is well done. However, the following
information is important:
1. Study design
The study design described is more of a retrospective study design because the data was
abstracted from the study participants files. The data on the patterns of the peptic ulcers is
routinely collected in each of these sites. Is this the case? It should be clarified
2. Study procedures
- What was the specific qualification of the surgeons who performed the surgery? The providers
who offered care was described but the specific provider who did the surgeries is not indicated.
This is important to ensure the validity of the data of the patterns of perforated peptic ulcers.
- Was the pattern of all peptic ulcer perforations recorded intraoperatively presumptively and
only those who consented to the study had their data included in the study or is recording of the
patterns done routinely as part of standard of care? If this is the case, it should clearly be stated.
How was the study coordinated between the various sites?
Discussion/Conclusion
- what is the significance of this study to the surgeons? This should be discussed and emphasized
assistant