Reviewer’ s report
Title: The Durham Initiative for Stomach Health (DISH): A pilot community-based Helicobacter
pylori education and screening study
Version: 0Date: 03 Jun 2020
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 attachments 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.
This is an interesting study of assessing the efficacy of screening for H pylori in a relatively
asymptomatic group over the age of 40 which could be a useful pilot study for future moreextensive studies.A lot of effort put in to attract only 92 individuals.The subjects studied were African American who were church goers, I note Tuesday was the daythe study was conducted, I wonder why Sunday was not chosen when the number of worshiperswould be greater
The main drawback to the study is that we are not told the size of the target population
Like most screening studies the majority are females, however, males are more prone to gastriccancer than females and more effort to encourage males to participate in screening is necessaryThe relative low prevalence of H pylori in 27% of individuals is surprising but may represent an
inherent bias towards a more affluent population
The disappointing results of eradication rates of 70%I note family practitioners were informed but as discussed their track record of testing, treating andre-testing are poorThe treatments given, were they uniform, would it have been better if the investigators gave thetreatmentWould it be better if the treatment was free of chargeWould it be better if compliance was more rigorously enforcedTables 1. table 2 and table four are not necessary, table 3 is crutial as is the figureI note that the same congregation with the help of their pastor had initiatives for colon cancer, arethere any results of this campaign
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your 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.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 applied 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.
noneReviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.If
you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing
the review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
Reviewer’ s report
Title: The Durham Initiative for Stomach Health (DISH): A pilot community-based Helicobacter
pylori education and screening study
Version: 0Date: 03 Jun 2020
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 attachments 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.
This is an interesting study of assessing the efficacy of screening for H pylori in a relatively
asymptomatic group over the age of 40 which could be a useful pilot study for future moreextensive studies.A lot of effort put in to attract only 92 individuals.The subjects studied were African American who were church goers, I note Tuesday was the daythe study was conducted, I wonder why Sunday was not chosen when the number of worshiperswould be greater
The main drawback to the study is that we are not told the size of the target population
Like most screening studies the majority are females, however, males are more prone to gastriccancer than females and more effort to encourage males to participate in screening is necessaryThe relative low prevalence of H pylori in 27% of individuals is surprising but may represent an
inherent bias towards a more affluent population
The disappointing results of eradication rates of 70%I note family practitioners were informed but as discussed their track record of testing, treating andre-testing are poorThe treatments given, were they uniform, would it have been better if the investigators gave thetreatmentWould it be better if the treatment was free of chargeWould it be better if compliance was more rigorously enforcedTables 1. table 2 and table four are not necessary, table 3 is crutial as is the figureI note that the same congregation with the help of their pastor had initiatives for colon cancer, arethere any results of this campaign
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your 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.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 applied 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.
noneReviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.If
you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing
the review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’ s report
Title: The Durham Initiative for Stomach Health (DISH): A pilot community-based Helicobacter
pylori education and screening study
Version: 0Date: 03 Jun 2020
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 attachments 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.
This is an interesting study of assessing the efficacy of screening for H pylori in a relatively
asymptomatic group over the age of 40 which could be a useful pilot study for future moreextensive studies.A lot of effort put in to attract only 92 individuals.The subjects studied were African American who were church goers, I note Tuesday was the daythe study was conducted, I wonder why Sunday was not chosen when the number of worshiperswould be greater
The main drawback to the study is that we are not told the size of the target population
Like most screening studies the majority are females, however, males are more prone to gastriccancer than females and more effort to encourage males to participate in screening is necessaryThe relative low prevalence of H pylori in 27% of individuals is surprising but may represent an
inherent bias towards a more affluent population
The disappointing results of eradication rates of 70%I note family practitioners were informed but as discussed their track record of testing, treating andre-testing are poorThe treatments given, were they uniform, would it have been better if the investigators gave thetreatmentWould it be better if the treatment was free of chargeWould it be better if compliance was more rigorously enforcedTables 1. table 2 and table four are not necessary, table 3 is crutial as is the figureI note that the same congregation with the help of their pastor had initiatives for colon cancer, arethere any results of this campaign
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your 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.
YesAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 applied 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.
noneReviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.If
you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completing
the review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
assistant