Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Relevance of vitamin D deficiency in patients with chronic autoimmune atrophic gastritis: 
a prospective study.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Jul 2018  
 
Reviewer: Benjamin Misselwitz  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as at tachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
The authors perform a prospective ana lysis of 87 patients with chronic atrophic autoimmune 
gastritis (CAAG) and a large control group. CAAG patients had lower vitamin D levels 
compared to controls. Further, the authors observed a positive correlation between Vitamin D 
and Vitamin B12 levels; and lower vitamin D levels in patients with severe gastritis gastric 
carcinoids. The paper is well written and data are clearly presented. The low number of patients 
is a limitation, in addition the control group has not been defined well.    
 
Major points : 
- The control group is not defined. It would be extremely important to understand how these 
individuals were recruited. Right now it seems as if healthy volunteers were compared with 
sick patients.  
 
- Mild moderate and severe atrophy on biopsies was defi ned according to Sydney criteria. 
Since this classification is central to the message of this paper, the authors should briefly 
remind the reader of these criteria (and the Solcia criteria). Further, how were the samples 
analyzed for severity of atrophic g astritis and ECL status? By two pathologists who 
independently and blindly reviewed the samples?  
 
- Table 2 lacks statistics  
Are the me thods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
  
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to as sess 
 
Are the conclusions 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscr ipt: 
 
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, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may  in any way gain or lose financially 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 n ow 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 t o 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 int erests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
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 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 included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Relevance of vitamin D deficiency in patients with chronic autoimmune atrophic gastritis: 
a prospective study.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Jul 2018  
 
Reviewer: Benjamin Misselwitz  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as at tachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
The authors perform a prospective ana lysis of 87 patients with chronic atrophic autoimmune 
gastritis (CAAG) and a large control group. CAAG patients had lower vitamin D levels 
compared to controls. Further, the authors observed a positive correlation between Vitamin D 
and Vitamin B12 levels; and lower vitamin D levels in patients with severe gastritis gastric 
carcinoids. The paper is well written and data are clearly presented. The low number of patients 
is a limitation, in addition the control group has not been defined well.    
 
Major points : 
- The control group is not defined. It would be extremely important to understand how these 
individuals were recruited. Right now it seems as if healthy volunteers were compared with 
sick patients.  
 
- Mild moderate and severe atrophy on biopsies was defi ned according to Sydney criteria. 
Since this classification is central to the message of this paper, the authors should briefly 
remind the reader of these criteria (and the Solcia criteria). Further, how were the samples 
analyzed for severity of atrophic g astritis and ECL status? By two pathologists who 
independently and blindly reviewed the samples?  
 
- Table 2 lacks statistics  
Are the me thods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
  
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to as sess 
 
Are the conclusions 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscr ipt: 
 
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, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may  in any way gain or lose financially 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 n ow 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 t o 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 int erests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
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 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 included as confidential comments  
to the editors, 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: Relevance of vitamin D deficiency in patients with chronic autoimmune atrophic gastritis: 
a prospective study.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Jul 2018  
 
Reviewer: Benjamin Misselwitz  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as at tachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
The authors perform a prospective ana lysis of 87 patients with chronic atrophic autoimmune 
gastritis (CAAG) and a large control group. CAAG patients had lower vitamin D levels 
compared to controls. Further, the authors observed a positive correlation between Vitamin D 
and Vitamin B12 levels; and lower vitamin D levels in patients with severe gastritis gastric 
carcinoids. The paper is well written and data are clearly presented. The low number of patients 
is a limitation, in addition the control group has not been defined well.    
 
Major points : 
- The control group is not defined. It would be extremely important to understand how these 
individuals were recruited. Right now it seems as if healthy volunteers were compared with 
sick patients.  
 
- Mild moderate and severe atrophy on biopsies was defi ned according to Sydney criteria. 
Since this classification is central to the message of this paper, the authors should briefly 
remind the reader of these criteria (and the Solcia criteria). Further, how were the samples 
analyzed for severity of atrophic g astritis and ECL status? By two pathologists who 
independently and blindly reviewed the samples?  
 
- Table 2 lacks statistics  
Are the me thods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
  
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to as sess 
 
Are the conclusions 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscr ipt: 
 
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, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may  in any way gain or lose financially 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 n ow 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 t o 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 int erests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
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 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 included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant