Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF GASTROOESOPHAGEAL REFLUX AND EROSIVE 
TOOTH WEAR  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Nicola de Bortoli  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Author  
 
I read with interest your paper entitled "Longitudinal study of gastroesophageal reflux and 
erosive tooth wear" it is a well written paper and your results supp ort the conclusions.  
 
I have some questions that have necessarly be elucidated:  
- Methods section: did your patients undergo esophageal manometry prior to undergo MII -pH? 
If yes please detail it.  
- Methods section: wich type of MII -pH device did you use Ohm ega MMS or pHversaflex - 
Medtronic?  
- Methods section: when you reported normal value (Zerbib et al - REF 11) you defined those 
as European normal value. We do not have European normal value! Those are Belgian -
French normal values and are in line with thos e previously described by Zentilin (Dig Liver 
Dis. 2006 Apr;38(4):226 -32)  
- Why did not you evaluate baseline impedance value (MNBI) and post -reflux swallowed 
induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index in your patients. It may be helpful to better 
distinguish patients who had progression of erosions from those who did not [Frazzoni M, et 
al. The added diagnostic value of postreflux swallow -induced peristaltic wave index and 
nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory reflux disease studied with on -therapy 
impeda nce-pH monitoring. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017 Mar;29(3)]. Please comment in 
the discussion session.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in yo ur comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qualit y of language in the manuscript:  
 
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 f rom 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 now 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 ap plied for patents relating to 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 interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
None  
 
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 for 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: LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF GASTROOESOPHAGEAL REFLUX AND EROSIVE 
TOOTH WEAR  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Nicola de Bortoli  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Author  
 
I read with interest your paper entitled "Longitudinal study of gastroesophageal reflux and 
erosive tooth wear" it is a well written paper and your results supp ort the conclusions.  
 
I have some questions that have necessarly be elucidated:  
- Methods section: did your patients undergo esophageal manometry prior to undergo MII -pH? 
If yes please detail it.  
- Methods section: wich type of MII -pH device did you use Ohm ega MMS or pHversaflex - 
Medtronic?  
- Methods section: when you reported normal value (Zerbib et al - REF 11) you defined those 
as European normal value. We do not have European normal value! Those are Belgian -
French normal values and are in line with thos e previously described by Zentilin (Dig Liver 
Dis. 2006 Apr;38(4):226 -32)  
- Why did not you evaluate baseline impedance value (MNBI) and post -reflux swallowed 
induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index in your patients. It may be helpful to better 
distinguish patients who had progression of erosions from those who did not [Frazzoni M, et 
al. The added diagnostic value of postreflux swallow -induced peristaltic wave index and 
nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory reflux disease studied with on -therapy 
impeda nce-pH monitoring. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017 Mar;29(3)]. Please comment in 
the discussion session.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in yo ur comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qualit y of language in the manuscript:  
 
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 f rom 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 now 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 ap plied for patents relating to 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 interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
None  
 
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 for 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: LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF GASTROOESOPHAGEAL REFLUX AND EROSIVE 
TOOTH WEAR  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Nicola de Bortoli  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Author  
 
I read with interest your paper entitled "Longitudinal study of gastroesophageal reflux and 
erosive tooth wear" it is a well written paper and your results supp ort the conclusions.  
 
I have some questions that have necessarly be elucidated:  
- Methods section: did your patients undergo esophageal manometry prior to undergo MII -pH? 
If yes please detail it.  
- Methods section: wich type of MII -pH device did you use Ohm ega MMS or pHversaflex - 
Medtronic?  
- Methods section: when you reported normal value (Zerbib et al - REF 11) you defined those 
as European normal value. We do not have European normal value! Those are Belgian -
French normal values and are in line with thos e previously described by Zentilin (Dig Liver 
Dis. 2006 Apr;38(4):226 -32)  
- Why did not you evaluate baseline impedance value (MNBI) and post -reflux swallowed 
induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index in your patients. It may be helpful to better 
distinguish patients who had progression of erosions from those who did not [Frazzoni M, et 
al. The added diagnostic value of postreflux swallow -induced peristaltic wave index and 
nocturnal baseline impedance in refractory reflux disease studied with on -therapy 
impeda nce-pH monitoring. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017 Mar;29(3)]. Please comment in 
the discussion session.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in yo ur comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qualit y of language in the manuscript:  
 
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 f rom 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 now 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 ap plied for patents relating to 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 interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
None  
 
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 for 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