Title: Simultaneous detection of Helicobacter pylori infection comparing between white light
and image-enhanced endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The major concerns about this manuscript are as below;
First, the similar reports were previously published in many countries. As the authors known,
RAC is reported to be a major finding of H. pylori negativity. Although several IEE were used,
the results from this study seem not to have a high priority.
Second, the criteria for H. pylori gastritis should be clearly defined in the method section. The
Kyoto classification and BLI/LCI findings, the known endoscopic findings, are not needed to
be written in the method section. They can be cited as references.
Third, Figure 3 shows the different distance between WLI/LCI and BLI/NBI. In contrast to
the close-up photos by BLI/NBI, the endoscopic features by WLI/LCI were seen as gross
appearance.
Fourth, the results using WLI and IEE were not shown in same Table. If the authors wish to
compare them as the manuscript title, they should be combined as same Table.
Fifth, the patients were divided by H. pylori infection status in Table 1, which was not required.
Other endoscopic findings including peptic ulcer, gastric atrophy, and intestinal metaplasia are
needed in Table 1.
Sixth, review of other studies including Table 4 and 5 are not needed as the form of original
research.
Seventh, the numbers of biopsy were not consistent in the abstract (five) and text body (four).
The area of biopsy should be described in detail according to RUT, histology, and culture.
Lastly, the number of IRB and registration number (eg. ClinicalTrials.gov) is required in the
section of study design.
Title: Simultaneous detection of Helicobacter pylori infection comparing between white light
and image-enhanced endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The major concerns about this manuscript are as below;
First, the similar reports were previously published in many countries. As the authors known,
RAC is reported to be a major finding of H. pylori negativity. Although several IEE were used,
the results from this study seem not to have a high priority.
Second, the criteria for H. pylori gastritis should be clearly defined in the method section. The
Kyoto classification and BLI/LCI findings, the known endoscopic findings, are not needed to
be written in the method section. They can be cited as references.
Third, Figure 3 shows the different distance between WLI/LCI and BLI/NBI. In contrast to
the close-up photos by BLI/NBI, the endoscopic features by WLI/LCI were seen as gross
appearance.
Fourth, the results using WLI and IEE were not shown in same Table. If the authors wish to
compare them as the manuscript title, they should be combined as same Table.
Fifth, the patients were divided by H. pylori infection status in Table 1, which was not required.
Other endoscopic findings including peptic ulcer, gastric atrophy, and intestinal metaplasia are
needed in Table 1.
Sixth, review of other studies including Table 4 and 5 are not needed as the form of original
research.
Seventh, the numbers of biopsy were not consistent in the abstract (five) and text body (four).
The area of biopsy should be described in detail according to RUT, histology, and culture.
Lastly, the number of IRB and registration number (eg. ClinicalTrials.gov) is required in the
section of study design.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Simultaneous detection of Helicobacter pylori infection comparing between white light
and image-enhanced endoscopy
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2023
Reviewer:  Jun-Hyung Cho
Reviewer's report:
The major concerns about this manuscript are as below;
First, the similar reports were previously published in many countries. As the authors known,
RAC is reported to be a major finding of H. pylori negativity. Although several IEE were used,
the results from this study seem not to have a high priority.
Second, the criteria for H. pylori gastritis should be clearly defined in the method section. The
Kyoto classification and BLI/LCI findings, the known endoscopic findings, are not needed to
be written in the method section. They can be cited as references.
Third, Figure 3 shows the different distance between WLI/LCI and BLI/NBI. In contrast to
the close-up photos by BLI/NBI, the endoscopic features by WLI/LCI were seen as gross
appearance.
Fourth, the results using WLI and IEE were not shown in same Table. If the authors wish to
compare them as the manuscript title, they should be combined as same Table.
Fifth, the patients were divided by H. pylori infection status in Table 1, which was not required.
Other endoscopic findings including peptic ulcer, gastric atrophy, and intestinal metaplasia are
needed in Table 1.
Sixth, review of other studies including Table 4 and 5 are not needed as the form of original
research.
Seventh, the numbers of biopsy were not consistent in the abstract (five) and text body (four).
The area of biopsy should be described in detail according to RUT, histology, and culture.
Lastly, the number of IRB and registration number (eg. ClinicalTrials.gov) is required in the
section of study design.
assistant