Reviewer’s report
Title: Gastroesophageal reflux disease in a typical African population A symptom-based multicenter
study.
Version: 1 Date: 15 Apr 2019
Reviewer: Shobna J. Bhatia
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 a well conducted study done to assess the frequency of GERD symptoms and their  frequency in
Nigeria. 
1. The GERDQ is designed to be used as a self-assessment questionnaire. In order to be used in
Nigeria, the translation in local language would be needed. The authors mention that "administration of
the study questionnaire" was done. It is not clear whether it was the paramedical workers or doctors
who administered it. 
2. There are no details about how FGID was diagnosed. Mention of Rome III criteria is mentioned, but
no details are available. Putative risk factors of GERD were assessed, however there is no mention of
the risk factors which were assessed or whether it was a yes/no response / frequency.
3. The Results are sketchy. Some baseline parameters of GERD patients are mentioned ; There are no
details  for  the  rest  of  the  population.  These  data  would  be  helpful  to  understand  whether  any
differences exist between the people with GERD and those without.
4. The number of patients with various symptoms are listed in Table, but the actual frequency of
symptoms in patients (weekly / monthly etc) is not available. 
5. The number of overall subjects with FGID in the entire population  is not mentioned. The figure
shows overlap in percentages; actual numbers would be helpful. 
6. It is not clear why farmers had higher reflux. Authors should explain this.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality 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 from 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 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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: Gastroesophageal reflux disease in a typical African population A symptom-based multicenter
study.
Version: 1 Date: 15 Apr 2019
Reviewer: Shobna J. Bhatia
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 a well conducted study done to assess the frequency of GERD symptoms and their  frequency in
Nigeria. 
1. The GERDQ is designed to be used as a self-assessment questionnaire. In order to be used in
Nigeria, the translation in local language would be needed. The authors mention that "administration of
the study questionnaire" was done. It is not clear whether it was the paramedical workers or doctors
who administered it. 
2. There are no details about how FGID was diagnosed. Mention of Rome III criteria is mentioned, but
no details are available. Putative risk factors of GERD were assessed, however there is no mention of
the risk factors which were assessed or whether it was a yes/no response / frequency.
3. The Results are sketchy. Some baseline parameters of GERD patients are mentioned ; There are no
details  for  the  rest  of  the  population.  These  data  would  be  helpful  to  understand  whether  any
differences exist between the people with GERD and those without.
4. The number of patients with various symptoms are listed in Table, but the actual frequency of
symptoms in patients (weekly / monthly etc) is not available. 
5. The number of overall subjects with FGID in the entire population  is not mentioned. The figure
shows overlap in percentages; actual numbers would be helpful. 
6. It is not clear why farmers had higher reflux. Authors should explain this.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality 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 from 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 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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: Gastroesophageal reflux disease in a typical African population A symptom-based multicenter
study.
Version: 1 Date: 15 Apr 2019
Reviewer: Shobna J. Bhatia
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 a well conducted study done to assess the frequency of GERD symptoms and their  frequency in
Nigeria. 
1. The GERDQ is designed to be used as a self-assessment questionnaire. In order to be used in
Nigeria, the translation in local language would be needed. The authors mention that "administration of
the study questionnaire" was done. It is not clear whether it was the paramedical workers or doctors
who administered it. 
2. There are no details about how FGID was diagnosed. Mention of Rome III criteria is mentioned, but
no details are available. Putative risk factors of GERD were assessed, however there is no mention of
the risk factors which were assessed or whether it was a yes/no response / frequency.
3. The Results are sketchy. Some baseline parameters of GERD patients are mentioned ; There are no
details  for  the  rest  of  the  population.  These  data  would  be  helpful  to  understand  whether  any
differences exist between the people with GERD and those without.
4. The number of patients with various symptoms are listed in Table, but the actual frequency of
symptoms in patients (weekly / monthly etc) is not available. 
5. The number of overall subjects with FGID in the entire population  is not mentioned. The figure
shows overlap in percentages; actual numbers would be helpful. 
6. It is not clear why farmers had higher reflux. Authors should explain this.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
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.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality 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 from 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 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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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