Title: Triple-drug combination therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy
in non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter eradication, and hyperacid environment preference of
Helicobacter suis: A clinical study.
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editorial office
Here are my comments for paper by TSUKADAIRA et al entitled “Triple-drug combination
therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy in non-Helicobacter pylori
Helicobacter eradication: a clinical study” submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
The content of the paper is well enough to consider it but its final status remains dependent  to
the some minor revisions and corrections.
1- The criteria to call H. pylori positive should be clearly stated in the paper. Also in the abstract.
2- The type of writing for the conclusion section is not appropriate, please arrange them into
the sentence and better wording.
3- Key words and title are fine and acceptable.
4- Duration of the paper is aceptable for this journal. I am also fine with novelty of the research.
It is informative and well-written for readers.
5- Some text needs a minor polish by native British teacher.
6- This text should be supported heavily by appropriate references “Reports on eradication of
non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) gastritis in Japanese patients are rare”, mainly
updatred references.
7- Enough history about treatment of NHPH should be inserted for those infected patients.
8- Basic treatment guides should be inserted in the introduction section, these below papas are
suggested to help and enrich:
• doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2018.03.005. Epub 2018 Mar 23. PMID: 29581076.
• doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00168. PMID: 28529929; PMCID: PMC5418237.
Reading the above text, the revised version for discussion should be more informative and
suitable for start of introduction.
9- This is not the proper way of writing about the goals “we aimed to make an informative report
on this.” In introduction.
10- DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen)?  Lot number should be inserted .
11- Fast Gene Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (Nippon Genetics). Lot number should be inserted .
12- Very low rate, why? “Of these 4,198 patients, 68 consisting of 63 men and 5 women were
diagnosed as NHPH infection by microscopic examination based on Giemsa staining” please
come up with a explanation in your discussion.
13- I am not ok with this nomination “second-round eradication”
14- What does it mean? “In the first-round eradication”. I am confused.
15- This is not enough to draw a conclusion “In total, the triple-drug combination therapy
succeeded in seven out of eight (87.5%) attempted cases, while PPI monotherapy in five out of
10 (50%) attempted cases “ is not it?> at least makesome discussion to make it clearer.
16- “On the other hand, the effectiveness of PPI monotherapy is also worth considering as a
regimen for NHPH eradication other than the first-line regimen with three drugs” we never get
acceptable report from monotherapy against any of HELICOBACTER GENUS MEMMBER.
NOTED!!!
17- SHALL BE WORRY ABOUT THE GENDER? “Gender of NHPH-infected patients” thisis
a bit strange if authors want to highligh it.
18- The main inducing criteria should be inserted in mnaterial and methods section revised
version, please make it in revised version.
19- Make this conclusion a bit slighter “Triple-drug combination therapy was also effective in
NHPH eradication”. I think it is too early to draw such conclusion.
20- At the end, we want tsome more informative, evidence-based sentences for conclusion
section
Title: Triple-drug combination therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy
in non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter eradication, and hyperacid environment preference of
Helicobacter suis: A clinical study.
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editorial office
Here are my comments for paper by TSUKADAIRA et al entitled “Triple-drug combination
therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy in non-Helicobacter pylori
Helicobacter eradication: a clinical study” submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
The content of the paper is well enough to consider it but its final status remains dependent  to
the some minor revisions and corrections.
1- The criteria to call H. pylori positive should be clearly stated in the paper. Also in the abstract.
2- The type of writing for the conclusion section is not appropriate, please arrange them into
the sentence and better wording.
3- Key words and title are fine and acceptable.
4- Duration of the paper is aceptable for this journal. I am also fine with novelty of the research.
It is informative and well-written for readers.
5- Some text needs a minor polish by native British teacher.
6- This text should be supported heavily by appropriate references “Reports on eradication of
non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) gastritis in Japanese patients are rare”, mainly
updatred references.
7- Enough history about treatment of NHPH should be inserted for those infected patients.
8- Basic treatment guides should be inserted in the introduction section, these below papas are
suggested to help and enrich:
• doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2018.03.005. Epub 2018 Mar 23. PMID: 29581076.
• doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00168. PMID: 28529929; PMCID: PMC5418237.
Reading the above text, the revised version for discussion should be more informative and
suitable for start of introduction.
9- This is not the proper way of writing about the goals “we aimed to make an informative report
on this.” In introduction.
10- DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen)?  Lot number should be inserted .
11- Fast Gene Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (Nippon Genetics). Lot number should be inserted .
12- Very low rate, why? “Of these 4,198 patients, 68 consisting of 63 men and 5 women were
diagnosed as NHPH infection by microscopic examination based on Giemsa staining” please
come up with a explanation in your discussion.
13- I am not ok with this nomination “second-round eradication”
14- What does it mean? “In the first-round eradication”. I am confused.
15- This is not enough to draw a conclusion “In total, the triple-drug combination therapy
succeeded in seven out of eight (87.5%) attempted cases, while PPI monotherapy in five out of
10 (50%) attempted cases “ is not it?> at least makesome discussion to make it clearer.
16- “On the other hand, the effectiveness of PPI monotherapy is also worth considering as a
regimen for NHPH eradication other than the first-line regimen with three drugs” we never get
acceptable report from monotherapy against any of HELICOBACTER GENUS MEMMBER.
NOTED!!!
17- SHALL BE WORRY ABOUT THE GENDER? “Gender of NHPH-infected patients” thisis
a bit strange if authors want to highligh it.
18- The main inducing criteria should be inserted in mnaterial and methods section revised
version, please make it in revised version.
19- Make this conclusion a bit slighter “Triple-drug combination therapy was also effective in
NHPH eradication”. I think it is too early to draw such conclusion.
20- At the end, we want tsome more informative, evidence-based sentences for conclusion
section
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Triple-drug combination therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy
in non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter eradication, and hyperacid environment preference of
Helicobacter suis: A clinical study.
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editorial office
Here are my comments for paper by TSUKADAIRA et al entitled “Triple-drug combination
therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy in non-Helicobacter pylori
Helicobacter eradication: a clinical study” submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
The content of the paper is well enough to consider it but its final status remains dependent  to
the some minor revisions and corrections.
1- The criteria to call H. pylori positive should be clearly stated in the paper. Also in the abstract.
2- The type of writing for the conclusion section is not appropriate, please arrange them into
the sentence and better wording.
3- Key words and title are fine and acceptable.
4- Duration of the paper is aceptable for this journal. I am also fine with novelty of the research.
It is informative and well-written for readers.
5- Some text needs a minor polish by native British teacher.
6- This text should be supported heavily by appropriate references “Reports on eradication of
non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) gastritis in Japanese patients are rare”, mainly
updatred references.
7- Enough history about treatment of NHPH should be inserted for those infected patients.
8- Basic treatment guides should be inserted in the introduction section, these below papas are
suggested to help and enrich:
• doi: 10.1016/j.jgar.2018.03.005. Epub 2018 Mar 23. PMID: 29581076.
• doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00168. PMID: 28529929; PMCID: PMC5418237.
Reading the above text, the revised version for discussion should be more informative and
suitable for start of introduction.
9- This is not the proper way of writing about the goals “we aimed to make an informative report
on this.” In introduction.
10- DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen)?  Lot number should be inserted .
11- Fast Gene Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (Nippon Genetics). Lot number should be inserted .
12- Very low rate, why? “Of these 4,198 patients, 68 consisting of 63 men and 5 women were
diagnosed as NHPH infection by microscopic examination based on Giemsa staining” please
come up with a explanation in your discussion.
13- I am not ok with this nomination “second-round eradication”
14- What does it mean? “In the first-round eradication”. I am confused.
15- This is not enough to draw a conclusion “In total, the triple-drug combination therapy
succeeded in seven out of eight (87.5%) attempted cases, while PPI monotherapy in five out of
10 (50%) attempted cases “ is not it?> at least makesome discussion to make it clearer.
16- “On the other hand, the effectiveness of PPI monotherapy is also worth considering as a
regimen for NHPH eradication other than the first-line regimen with three drugs” we never get
acceptable report from monotherapy against any of HELICOBACTER GENUS MEMMBER.
NOTED!!!
17- SHALL BE WORRY ABOUT THE GENDER? “Gender of NHPH-infected patients” thisis
a bit strange if authors want to highligh it.
18- The main inducing criteria should be inserted in mnaterial and methods section revised
version, please make it in revised version.
19- Make this conclusion a bit slighter “Triple-drug combination therapy was also effective in
NHPH eradication”. I think it is too early to draw such conclusion.
20- At the end, we want tsome more informative, evidence-based sentences for conclusion
section
assistant