Title: The evaluation of MMP-2/TIMP-1 ratio in peptic ulcer and its association with refractory
helicobacter pylori infection Running head: MMP-2/TIMP-1 in PUD and H. pylori infection
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I examined the authors’ point-by-point responses to my previous
comments and the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors responded adequately to each of the questions or concerns I raised in my comments.
They also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself.
With this revision, the article has become more tidy, its deficiencies and errors have been
corrected, and it contains more satisfying information.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The article has become really beautiful as it is. The authors have already mentioned the
limitations. deficiencies and errors have been corrected. Doesn't seem to need any further editing.
Title: The evaluation of MMP-2/TIMP-1 ratio in peptic ulcer and its association with refractory
helicobacter pylori infection Running head: MMP-2/TIMP-1 in PUD and H. pylori infection
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I examined the authors’ point-by-point responses to my previous
comments and the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors responded adequately to each of the questions or concerns I raised in my comments.
They also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself.
With this revision, the article has become more tidy, its deficiencies and errors have been
corrected, and it contains more satisfying information.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The article has become really beautiful as it is. The authors have already mentioned the
limitations. deficiencies and errors have been corrected. Doesn't seem to need any further editing.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The evaluation of MMP-2/TIMP-1 ratio in peptic ulcer and its association with refractory
helicobacter pylori infection Running head: MMP-2/TIMP-1 in PUD and H. pylori infection
Version: 2 Date: 07 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I examined the authors’ point-by-point responses to my previous
comments and the revised version of the manuscript.
The authors responded adequately to each of the questions or concerns I raised in my comments.
They also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself.
With this revision, the article has become more tidy, its deficiencies and errors have been
corrected, and it contains more satisfying information.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The article has become really beautiful as it is. The authors have already mentioned the
limitations. deficiencies and errors have been corrected. Doesn't seem to need any further editing.
assistant