Title: Triple-drug combination therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy
in non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter eradication, and hyperacid environment preference of
Helicobacter suis: A clinical study.
Version: 2 Date: 30 Mar 2024
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 objective?)
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the revised letter and the authors have answered the queries
to both reviewers except one comment.
In 3.4 they mention that patients were followed annually with EGD who chose not to undergone
treatment, however, they did not provide any actual statistics if there was eradication achieved
for any of these patients. This should be provided.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see above
Title: Triple-drug combination therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy
in non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter eradication, and hyperacid environment preference of
Helicobacter suis: A clinical study.
Version: 2 Date: 30 Mar 2024
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 objective?)
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the revised letter and the authors have answered the queries
to both reviewers except one comment.
In 3.4 they mention that patients were followed annually with EGD who chose not to undergone
treatment, however, they did not provide any actual statistics if there was eradication achieved
for any of these patients. This should be provided.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Triple-drug combination therapy versus six-month proton pump inhibitor monotherapy
in non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter eradication, and hyperacid environment preference of
Helicobacter suis: A clinical study.
Version: 2 Date: 30 Mar 2024
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 objective?)
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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the revised letter and the authors have answered the queries
to both reviewers except one comment.
In 3.4 they mention that patients were followed annually with EGD who chose not to undergone
treatment, however, they did not provide any actual statistics if there was eradication achieved
for any of these patients. This should be provided.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see above
assistant