Title: Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by gastric anisakiasis:
A multicenter retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled “Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by
gastric anisakiasis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study” is an interesting retrospective
cohort study involving 264 patients diagnosed with gastric anisakiasis analysed to detect
potential correlation with clinical factors.
The study is interesting and the paper is well written.
However there are some aspects that needs clarification.
The main issue regards the identification of the anisakids species responsible for the described
cases. A large number of studies have demonstrated that the different species, in particular
A. simplex and A. pegreffii, are able to provoke different damages, have different ability to
penetrate the mucosa, different survival rates in gastric juice and, more importantly, RNA-
seq studies have demonstrated that they express genes involved in pathogenicity in a different
manner. Of course, I understand that the specific identification is not possible now, but the
authors should discuss this as a possible limitation of the study.
Being a retrospective cohort study based on medical records and endoscopic images, the
sentence at page 9: “We found 348 anisakis larvae (1 larvae, 212 patients; 2 larvae, 29 patients;
3 larvae, 7 patients; 4 larvae, 3 patients; 5 larvae, 3 patients; 6 larvae, 1 patient; 7 larvae, 2
patients; 10 larvae, 1 patient)” makes no sense.
Throughout the MS and especially in the References there are a lot of species names not correctly
written and not in italics (in particular H.pylori instead of H. pylori)
Title: Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by gastric anisakiasis:
A multicenter retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled “Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by
gastric anisakiasis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study” is an interesting retrospective
cohort study involving 264 patients diagnosed with gastric anisakiasis analysed to detect
potential correlation with clinical factors.
The study is interesting and the paper is well written.
However there are some aspects that needs clarification.
The main issue regards the identification of the anisakids species responsible for the described
cases. A large number of studies have demonstrated that the different species, in particular
A. simplex and A. pegreffii, are able to provoke different damages, have different ability to
penetrate the mucosa, different survival rates in gastric juice and, more importantly, RNA-
seq studies have demonstrated that they express genes involved in pathogenicity in a different
manner. Of course, I understand that the specific identification is not possible now, but the
authors should discuss this as a possible limitation of the study.
Being a retrospective cohort study based on medical records and endoscopic images, the
sentence at page 9: “We found 348 anisakis larvae (1 larvae, 212 patients; 2 larvae, 29 patients;
3 larvae, 7 patients; 4 larvae, 3 patients; 5 larvae, 3 patients; 6 larvae, 1 patient; 7 larvae, 2
patients; 10 larvae, 1 patient)” makes no sense.
Throughout the MS and especially in the References there are a lot of species names not correctly
written and not in italics (in particular H.pylori instead of H. pylori)
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by gastric anisakiasis:
A multicenter retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 12 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
The paper entitled “Clinical factors associated with acute abdominal symptoms induced by
gastric anisakiasis: A multicenter retrospective cohort study” is an interesting retrospective
cohort study involving 264 patients diagnosed with gastric anisakiasis analysed to detect
potential correlation with clinical factors.
The study is interesting and the paper is well written.
However there are some aspects that needs clarification.
The main issue regards the identification of the anisakids species responsible for the described
cases. A large number of studies have demonstrated that the different species, in particular
A. simplex and A. pegreffii, are able to provoke different damages, have different ability to
penetrate the mucosa, different survival rates in gastric juice and, more importantly, RNA-
seq studies have demonstrated that they express genes involved in pathogenicity in a different
manner. Of course, I understand that the specific identification is not possible now, but the
authors should discuss this as a possible limitation of the study.
Being a retrospective cohort study based on medical records and endoscopic images, the
sentence at page 9: “We found 348 anisakis larvae (1 larvae, 212 patients; 2 larvae, 29 patients;
3 larvae, 7 patients; 4 larvae, 3 patients; 5 larvae, 3 patients; 6 larvae, 1 patient; 7 larvae, 2
patients; 10 larvae, 1 patient)” makes no sense.
Throughout the MS and especially in the References there are a lot of species names not correctly
written and not in italics (in particular H.pylori instead of H. pylori)
assistant