Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 4 Date: 19 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors of this manuscript did a very good job collecting the data and they set to address a very
important subject. They should therefore be commended  for that.
I have some comments:
1. The grammar in the manuscript is quite poor and it needs to be revised. In addition, there are
so many typos, too numerous to itemise, many the authors kindly attend to those.
2.  I do not understand the conclusion in the abstract, was it drawn form these data?
3. what is the difference between precancerous disease and lesion? Is a gastric ulcer
precancerous? I do not think this type of terminology is standard.
4. Presentation is the results is too crude. Authors need to condense some of the tables and
present infuriation that is relevant to the massage they are conveying. For example, having three
different tables on demographic characteristics is redundant.
5. Reporting of significance needs to be clear, Authors should indicate confidence intervals
In summary,  this manuscript needs to be improved in order to make it suitable for publication.
Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 4 Date: 19 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors of this manuscript did a very good job collecting the data and they set to address a very
important subject. They should therefore be commended  for that.
I have some comments:
1. The grammar in the manuscript is quite poor and it needs to be revised. In addition, there are
so many typos, too numerous to itemise, many the authors kindly attend to those.
2.  I do not understand the conclusion in the abstract, was it drawn form these data?
3. what is the difference between precancerous disease and lesion? Is a gastric ulcer
precancerous? I do not think this type of terminology is standard.
4. Presentation is the results is too crude. Authors need to condense some of the tables and
present infuriation that is relevant to the massage they are conveying. For example, having three
different tables on demographic characteristics is redundant.
5. Reporting of significance needs to be clear, Authors should indicate confidence intervals
In summary,  this manuscript needs to be improved in order to make it suitable for publication.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical applicability of a new scoring system for population-based screening and risk
factors of gastric cancer in the Wannan region
Version: 4 Date: 19 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
Authors of this manuscript did a very good job collecting the data and they set to address a very
important subject. They should therefore be commended  for that.
I have some comments:
1. The grammar in the manuscript is quite poor and it needs to be revised. In addition, there are
so many typos, too numerous to itemise, many the authors kindly attend to those.
2.  I do not understand the conclusion in the abstract, was it drawn form these data?
3. what is the difference between precancerous disease and lesion? Is a gastric ulcer
precancerous? I do not think this type of terminology is standard.
4. Presentation is the results is too crude. Authors need to condense some of the tables and
present infuriation that is relevant to the massage they are conveying. For example, having three
different tables on demographic characteristics is redundant.
5. Reporting of significance needs to be clear, Authors should indicate confidence intervals
In summary,  this manuscript needs to be improved in order to make it suitable for publication.
assistant