Title: The influence of subjective well-being on anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients
with functional dyspepsia
Version: 7 Date: 06 May 2025
Reviewer:  Bryan Adrian Priego-Parra
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the editor’s invitation to review this manuscript, in which the authors evaluate
The influence of subjective well-being on anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients
with functional dyspepsia. The authors report that life satisfaction and emotional balance in FD
patients were negatively correlated with disease symptom severity (DSS), anxiety, depression,
and the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI) for quality of life. Moreover, they found that life
satisfaction and emotional balance were influencing factors for anxiety and depression. Finally,
after controlling for anxiety and depression, life satisfaction and emotional balance remained
significant influencing factors for patients’ quality of life (QoL).
This is an interesting article. Below are my suggestions for improvement:
1. Abstract
Define subjective well-being (SWB) at the beginning, and improve the English wording. For
example, revise:
“Subjective well-being (SWB) was subjective happiness, and it was also objective. Anxiety
and depression are now gradually believed to be the causes of functional dyspepsia (FD). The
influence of SWB was ignored in FD patients. To explore the influence of SWB on anxiety,
depression, symptom severity and quality of life (QoL) in FD patients.”
Suggested version:
“Subjective well-being (SWB) encompasses both subjective happiness and objective factors.
Anxiety and depression are increasingly recognized as contributing causes of functional
dyspepsia (FD), yet the role of SWB in FD patients has been largely overlooked. This study
aims to investigate the influence of SWB on anxiety, depression, symptom severity, and quality
of life (QoL) in individuals with FD.”
2. Conclusion of the Abstract
Change the sentence:
“FD patients’ SWB negatively affects their disease severity, anxiety and depression, and
positively affects their QoL.”
To:
“The SWB of FD patients is negatively associated with disease severity, anxiety, and depression,
and positively associated with their quality of life (QoL).”
3. Statistical Reporting
Write all p values in lowercase.
4. Line 30
Change: “FD is very common clinically in gastroenterology.”
To: “FD is a very common entity in gastroenterology clinics.”
5. Line 34
Change: “FD diagnosis is as easy as chronic gastritis.”
The phrase "as easy as chronic gastritis" implies that diagnosing chronic gastritis is “easy,”
which is subjective and lacks academic rigor. Chronic gastritis often requires biopsy and
endoscopy and is not always clinically obvious.
Suggested revision:
“The diagnosis of functional dyspepsia (FD) remains challenging and should not be considered
as straightforward as that of chronic gastritis.”
6. Lines 45–54
This section should be moved to the Methods section where the SWB scale is described. In the
Introduction, define SWB and its relationship to disorders of gut–brain interaction (DGBI).
7. Line 55 – Subheading
Change: “The impact of SWB on FD patients was ignore”
To: “The impact of SWB on FD patients has been ignored.”
Methodology Section
8. Line 90
Begin with the study design, followed by patient characteristics.
9. Line 152
Replace “gender” with “sex”; use “men” instead of “male” and “women” instead of “female”
throughout the text for consistency and accuracy in reporting.
Discussion
10. Line 231
This paragraph is contradictory. It first states that few studies have been conducted, then claims
this is the first. Please revise for consistency. For example:
“To our knowledge, few studies have examined the association between SWB and anxiety,
depression, and symptom severity in FD patients. This study is among the first to explore the
effects of SWB on anxiety, depression, symptom severity, and QoL.”
Overall, I find this to be an interesting article, but I recommend a thorough language and style
revision to improve clarity and academic tone.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
Title: The influence of subjective well-being on anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients
with functional dyspepsia
Version: 7 Date: 06 May 2025
Reviewer:  Bryan Adrian Priego-Parra
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the editor’s invitation to review this manuscript, in which the authors evaluate
The influence of subjective well-being on anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients
with functional dyspepsia. The authors report that life satisfaction and emotional balance in FD
patients were negatively correlated with disease symptom severity (DSS), anxiety, depression,
and the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI) for quality of life. Moreover, they found that life
satisfaction and emotional balance were influencing factors for anxiety and depression. Finally,
after controlling for anxiety and depression, life satisfaction and emotional balance remained
significant influencing factors for patients’ quality of life (QoL).
This is an interesting article. Below are my suggestions for improvement:
1. Abstract
Define subjective well-being (SWB) at the beginning, and improve the English wording. For
example, revise:
“Subjective well-being (SWB) was subjective happiness, and it was also objective. Anxiety
and depression are now gradually believed to be the causes of functional dyspepsia (FD). The
influence of SWB was ignored in FD patients. To explore the influence of SWB on anxiety,
depression, symptom severity and quality of life (QoL) in FD patients.”
Suggested version:
“Subjective well-being (SWB) encompasses both subjective happiness and objective factors.
Anxiety and depression are increasingly recognized as contributing causes of functional
dyspepsia (FD), yet the role of SWB in FD patients has been largely overlooked. This study
aims to investigate the influence of SWB on anxiety, depression, symptom severity, and quality
of life (QoL) in individuals with FD.”
2. Conclusion of the Abstract
Change the sentence:
“FD patients’ SWB negatively affects their disease severity, anxiety and depression, and
positively affects their QoL.”
To:
“The SWB of FD patients is negatively associated with disease severity, anxiety, and depression,
and positively associated with their quality of life (QoL).”
3. Statistical Reporting
Write all p values in lowercase.
4. Line 30
Change: “FD is very common clinically in gastroenterology.”
To: “FD is a very common entity in gastroenterology clinics.”
5. Line 34
Change: “FD diagnosis is as easy as chronic gastritis.”
The phrase "as easy as chronic gastritis" implies that diagnosing chronic gastritis is “easy,”
which is subjective and lacks academic rigor. Chronic gastritis often requires biopsy and
endoscopy and is not always clinically obvious.
Suggested revision:
“The diagnosis of functional dyspepsia (FD) remains challenging and should not be considered
as straightforward as that of chronic gastritis.”
6. Lines 45–54
This section should be moved to the Methods section where the SWB scale is described. In the
Introduction, define SWB and its relationship to disorders of gut–brain interaction (DGBI).
7. Line 55 – Subheading
Change: “The impact of SWB on FD patients was ignore”
To: “The impact of SWB on FD patients has been ignored.”
Methodology Section
8. Line 90
Begin with the study design, followed by patient characteristics.
9. Line 152
Replace “gender” with “sex”; use “men” instead of “male” and “women” instead of “female”
throughout the text for consistency and accuracy in reporting.
Discussion
10. Line 231
This paragraph is contradictory. It first states that few studies have been conducted, then claims
this is the first. Please revise for consistency. For example:
“To our knowledge, few studies have examined the association between SWB and anxiety,
depression, and symptom severity in FD patients. This study is among the first to explore the
effects of SWB on anxiety, depression, symptom severity, and QoL.”
Overall, I find this to be an interesting article, but I recommend a thorough language and style
revision to improve clarity and academic tone.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The influence of subjective well-being on anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients
with functional dyspepsia
Version: 7 Date: 06 May 2025
Reviewer:  Bryan Adrian Priego-Parra
Reviewer's report:
I appreciate the editor’s invitation to review this manuscript, in which the authors evaluate
The influence of subjective well-being on anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients
with functional dyspepsia. The authors report that life satisfaction and emotional balance in FD
patients were negatively correlated with disease symptom severity (DSS), anxiety, depression,
and the Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI) for quality of life. Moreover, they found that life
satisfaction and emotional balance were influencing factors for anxiety and depression. Finally,
after controlling for anxiety and depression, life satisfaction and emotional balance remained
significant influencing factors for patients’ quality of life (QoL).
This is an interesting article. Below are my suggestions for improvement:
1. Abstract
Define subjective well-being (SWB) at the beginning, and improve the English wording. For
example, revise:
“Subjective well-being (SWB) was subjective happiness, and it was also objective. Anxiety
and depression are now gradually believed to be the causes of functional dyspepsia (FD). The
influence of SWB was ignored in FD patients. To explore the influence of SWB on anxiety,
depression, symptom severity and quality of life (QoL) in FD patients.”
Suggested version:
“Subjective well-being (SWB) encompasses both subjective happiness and objective factors.
Anxiety and depression are increasingly recognized as contributing causes of functional
dyspepsia (FD), yet the role of SWB in FD patients has been largely overlooked. This study
aims to investigate the influence of SWB on anxiety, depression, symptom severity, and quality
of life (QoL) in individuals with FD.”
2. Conclusion of the Abstract
Change the sentence:
“FD patients’ SWB negatively affects their disease severity, anxiety and depression, and
positively affects their QoL.”
To:
“The SWB of FD patients is negatively associated with disease severity, anxiety, and depression,
and positively associated with their quality of life (QoL).”
3. Statistical Reporting
Write all p values in lowercase.
4. Line 30
Change: “FD is very common clinically in gastroenterology.”
To: “FD is a very common entity in gastroenterology clinics.”
5. Line 34
Change: “FD diagnosis is as easy as chronic gastritis.”
The phrase "as easy as chronic gastritis" implies that diagnosing chronic gastritis is “easy,”
which is subjective and lacks academic rigor. Chronic gastritis often requires biopsy and
endoscopy and is not always clinically obvious.
Suggested revision:
“The diagnosis of functional dyspepsia (FD) remains challenging and should not be considered
as straightforward as that of chronic gastritis.”
6. Lines 45–54
This section should be moved to the Methods section where the SWB scale is described. In the
Introduction, define SWB and its relationship to disorders of gut–brain interaction (DGBI).
7. Line 55 – Subheading
Change: “The impact of SWB on FD patients was ignore”
To: “The impact of SWB on FD patients has been ignored.”
Methodology Section
8. Line 90
Begin with the study design, followed by patient characteristics.
9. Line 152
Replace “gender” with “sex”; use “men” instead of “male” and “women” instead of “female”
throughout the text for consistency and accuracy in reporting.
Discussion
10. Line 231
This paragraph is contradictory. It first states that few studies have been conducted, then claims
this is the first. Please revise for consistency. For example:
“To our knowledge, few studies have examined the association between SWB and anxiety,
depression, and symptom severity in FD patients. This study is among the first to explore the
effects of SWB on anxiety, depression, symptom severity, and QoL.”
Overall, I find this to be an interesting article, but I recommend a thorough language and style
revision to improve clarity and academic tone.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript.
assistant