Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Stretta radiofrequency treatment vs Toupet fundoplicat ion for gastroesophageal reflux 
disease: A comparative study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Marco Patti  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a retrospective study with very short term follow -up of one year only.  
 
- The Authors mention a primary end -point of "d eath for complications of GERD". I think 
that they should choose another more reasonable end point !  
 
- The tables are confusing.  For the pH monitoring results hey should clearly describe the % 
time the pH is below 4 and the reflux score.  
 
- Mixing regular pH with impedance studies does not make sense  
 
- They should say "reflux" rather then "reflex".  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
 
Declara tion of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or los e financial ly from the publication of 
this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have  no compet ing 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 understan d that my name will be 
included on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 C reative 
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 in cluded 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: Stretta radiofrequency treatment vs Toupet fundoplicat ion for gastroesophageal reflux 
disease: A comparative study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Marco Patti  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a retrospective study with very short term follow -up of one year only.  
 
- The Authors mention a primary end -point of "d eath for complications of GERD". I think 
that they should choose another more reasonable end point !  
 
- The tables are confusing.  For the pH monitoring results hey should clearly describe the % 
time the pH is below 4 and the reflux score.  
 
- Mixing regular pH with impedance studies does not make sense  
 
- They should say "reflux" rather then "reflex".  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
 
Declara tion of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or los e financial ly from the publication of 
this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have  no compet ing 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 understan d that my name will be 
included on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 C reative 
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 in cluded 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: Stretta radiofrequency treatment vs Toupet fundoplicat ion for gastroesophageal reflux 
disease: A comparative study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 22 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Marco Patti  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a retrospective study with very short term follow -up of one year only.  
 
- The Authors mention a primary end -point of "d eath for complications of GERD". I think 
that they should choose another more reasonable end point !  
 
- The tables are confusing.  For the pH monitoring results hey should clearly describe the % 
time the pH is below 4 and the reflux score.  
 
- Mixing regular pH with impedance studies does not make sense  
 
- They should say "reflux" rather then "reflex".  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
 
Declara tion of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or los e financial ly from the publication of 
this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 answer no to all of the above, write 'I  declare that I have  no compet ing 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 understan d that my name will be 
included on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 C reative 
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 in cluded as 
confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant