Title: Better diagnostic accuracy for GERD observed with the new MNBI cutoff: An
observational study in Vietnam
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
THis is a monocentric retrospective analysis of a limited samples of patients underwent upperGI
evaluation in GERD suspect. The study has several limitations that decrease the enthusiasm in
the conclusions drawn by authors. My comments:
- Line 34: were patients with an already proven GERD (as stated by authors),  on or off PPI
therapy during exam? Specify, while this would change parameters.
- Line 39: How many patients did you excluded with major motility disorders, and why not
reassessing with Chicago 4.0, where a lot of previous diagnosis of EGJ-OO would have been
rediscussed.
- Results sections: Did you also stratified in the GERD phenotypes according to Lyon 2.0, how
was MNBI in these classes? How was the clinical assesment with questionnaires related to
MNBI? Were patients with hypomotility/LES hypotonia with lower MNBI?
- Line 63: why according to old Lyon consensus?
- Line 66: I would add "additionally", because is not included in diagnosis criteria but for
research purposes
- Line 85: I would just say that had no erosions, instead of GERD-related abnormalities
- Line 111: DIscussion should be expanded to more results reported in the tables.
- Line 131: "Frazzoni"
Title: Better diagnostic accuracy for GERD observed with the new MNBI cutoff: An
observational study in Vietnam
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
THis is a monocentric retrospective analysis of a limited samples of patients underwent upperGI
evaluation in GERD suspect. The study has several limitations that decrease the enthusiasm in
the conclusions drawn by authors. My comments:
- Line 34: were patients with an already proven GERD (as stated by authors),  on or off PPI
therapy during exam? Specify, while this would change parameters.
- Line 39: How many patients did you excluded with major motility disorders, and why not
reassessing with Chicago 4.0, where a lot of previous diagnosis of EGJ-OO would have been
rediscussed.
- Results sections: Did you also stratified in the GERD phenotypes according to Lyon 2.0, how
was MNBI in these classes? How was the clinical assesment with questionnaires related to
MNBI? Were patients with hypomotility/LES hypotonia with lower MNBI?
- Line 63: why according to old Lyon consensus?
- Line 66: I would add "additionally", because is not included in diagnosis criteria but for
research purposes
- Line 85: I would just say that had no erosions, instead of GERD-related abnormalities
- Line 111: DIscussion should be expanded to more results reported in the tables.
- Line 131: "Frazzoni"
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Better diagnostic accuracy for GERD observed with the new MNBI cutoff: An
observational study in Vietnam
Version: 3 Date: 30 Apr 2025
Reviewer's report:
THis is a monocentric retrospective analysis of a limited samples of patients underwent upperGI
evaluation in GERD suspect. The study has several limitations that decrease the enthusiasm in
the conclusions drawn by authors. My comments:
- Line 34: were patients with an already proven GERD (as stated by authors),  on or off PPI
therapy during exam? Specify, while this would change parameters.
- Line 39: How many patients did you excluded with major motility disorders, and why not
reassessing with Chicago 4.0, where a lot of previous diagnosis of EGJ-OO would have been
rediscussed.
- Results sections: Did you also stratified in the GERD phenotypes according to Lyon 2.0, how
was MNBI in these classes? How was the clinical assesment with questionnaires related to
MNBI? Were patients with hypomotility/LES hypotonia with lower MNBI?
- Line 63: why according to old Lyon consensus?
- Line 66: I would add "additionally", because is not included in diagnosis criteria but for
research purposes
- Line 85: I would just say that had no erosions, instead of GERD-related abnormalities
- Line 111: DIscussion should be expanded to more results reported in the tables.
- Line 131: "Frazzoni"
assistant