Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A cross -sectional study of nausea in functional abdominal pain: Relation to mucosal mast  
cells and psychological functioning  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear obj ective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient  technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
N/A - no experiments or analyses  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Yes - current version is tec hnically sound  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: My only reservation is that there should e a stronger statement that it 
is observational, cross sectional and therefore causation cannot be imputed. There should be a 
recommendation for properly d one prospective studies.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
Again, the issue or association does not impute causality  
 
My only reservation is that there should e a stronger statement that it is observational, cross 
sectional and therefore causation cannot be imputed. There should be a recommendation for 
properly done prospective studies.  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Make stronger statement that this is cross sectional, observational and these the findings, while 
interesting and provocative, do not prove causality.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which c ontrols 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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you reco mmend 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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years rece ived 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 s alary 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 a nswer 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Co mmons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understa nd 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: A cross -sectional study of nausea in functional abdominal pain: Relation to mucosal mast  
cells and psychological functioning  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear obj ective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient  technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
N/A - no experiments or analyses  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Yes - current version is tec hnically sound  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: My only reservation is that there should e a stronger statement that it 
is observational, cross sectional and therefore causation cannot be imputed. There should be a 
recommendation for properly d one prospective studies.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
Again, the issue or association does not impute causality  
 
My only reservation is that there should e a stronger statement that it is observational, cross 
sectional and therefore causation cannot be imputed. There should be a recommendation for 
properly done prospective studies.  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Make stronger statement that this is cross sectional, observational and these the findings, while 
interesting and provocative, do not prove causality.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which c ontrols 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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you reco mmend 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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years rece ived 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 s alary 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 a nswer 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Co mmons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understa nd 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: A cross -sectional study of nausea in functional abdominal pain: Relation to mucosal mast  
cells and psychological functioning  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear obj ective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient  technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
N/A - no experiments or analyses  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Yes - current version is tec hnically sound  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: My only reservation is that there should e a stronger statement that it 
is observational, cross sectional and therefore causation cannot be imputed. There should be a 
recommendation for properly d one prospective studies.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
Again, the issue or association does not impute causality  
 
My only reservation is that there should e a stronger statement that it is observational, cross 
sectional and therefore causation cannot be imputed. There should be a recommendation for 
properly done prospective studies.  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Make stronger statement that this is cross sectional, observational and these the findings, while 
interesting and provocative, do not prove causality.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which c ontrols 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.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you reco mmend 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 am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years rece ived 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 s alary 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 a nswer 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Co mmons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understa nd 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