Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Comparison of oesophageal function tests between Chinese non -erosive reflux disease a nd 
reflux hypersensitivity patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Feb 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Vincenzo  Savarino  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This study was performed to assess the functional differences between NERD and reflux 
hypersensitivity in a group of Chinese patients.  
 
The investigation is not original unless the fact that it has been performed in Chinese patients.  
My major comments are as follows:  
 
- The p values should be reported in the multiple comparisons appearing in the Abstract. 
Otherwise, it is difficult to under stand what is significant.  
 
- Patients enrolled in the study must be better defined (e.g. history of symptoms, frequency of 
them, response to medical therapy in the past, etc.)  
 
- As the study investigated patients with true NERD and RH, it would be interest ing to specify 
how many patients with functional heartburn were excluded from the analysis  
 
- In the "Results" and "Discussion" sections, the Authors must write RH instead of FH, that is 
functional heartburn  
 
- In the "discussion" section the Authors state t hat the prevalence of NERD is about 50% in 
Western countries, but there are papers showing that it is as high as 70%  
 
- The discussion is somewhat confusing and this reviewer suggests the Authors to re -write it by 
emphasizing primarily the findings of their  study and thereafter compare them to literature data  
 
- References are lacking, but this reviewer recommends the Authors to add some seminal papers 
in this field, such as those published by the Savarino's group (Savarino E et al, Am J 
Gastroenterol 2008; S avarino E et al, Am J Gastroenterol 2010; Savarino E et al, Gut 2009; 
Savarino E et al, Nat Review Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013).  
 
- At line 4 second page of the "Discussion", please add barrier to the word anti -reflux  
 
- English language must be reviewed  
 
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 controls 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend 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 indicate 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 received 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 rec eived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary 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 competing 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 understand 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 author s' 
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:  Comparison of oesophageal function tests between Chinese non -erosive reflux disease a nd 
reflux hypersensitivity patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Feb 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Vincenzo  Savarino  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This study was performed to assess the functional differences between NERD and reflux 
hypersensitivity in a group of Chinese patients.  
 
The investigation is not original unless the fact that it has been performed in Chinese patients.  
My major comments are as follows:  
 
- The p values should be reported in the multiple comparisons appearing in the Abstract. 
Otherwise, it is difficult to under stand what is significant.  
 
- Patients enrolled in the study must be better defined (e.g. history of symptoms, frequency of 
them, response to medical therapy in the past, etc.)  
 
- As the study investigated patients with true NERD and RH, it would be interest ing to specify 
how many patients with functional heartburn were excluded from the analysis  
 
- In the "Results" and "Discussion" sections, the Authors must write RH instead of FH, that is 
functional heartburn  
 
- In the "discussion" section the Authors state t hat the prevalence of NERD is about 50% in 
Western countries, but there are papers showing that it is as high as 70%  
 
- The discussion is somewhat confusing and this reviewer suggests the Authors to re -write it by 
emphasizing primarily the findings of their  study and thereafter compare them to literature data  
 
- References are lacking, but this reviewer recommends the Authors to add some seminal papers 
in this field, such as those published by the Savarino's group (Savarino E et al, Am J 
Gastroenterol 2008; S avarino E et al, Am J Gastroenterol 2010; Savarino E et al, Gut 2009; 
Savarino E et al, Nat Review Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013).  
 
- At line 4 second page of the "Discussion", please add barrier to the word anti -reflux  
 
- English language must be reviewed  
 
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 controls 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend 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 indicate 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 received 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 rec eived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary 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 competing 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 understand 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 author s' 
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:  Comparison of oesophageal function tests between Chinese non -erosive reflux disease a nd 
reflux hypersensitivity patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Feb 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Vincenzo  Savarino  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This study was performed to assess the functional differences between NERD and reflux 
hypersensitivity in a group of Chinese patients.  
 
The investigation is not original unless the fact that it has been performed in Chinese patients.  
My major comments are as follows:  
 
- The p values should be reported in the multiple comparisons appearing in the Abstract. 
Otherwise, it is difficult to under stand what is significant.  
 
- Patients enrolled in the study must be better defined (e.g. history of symptoms, frequency of 
them, response to medical therapy in the past, etc.)  
 
- As the study investigated patients with true NERD and RH, it would be interest ing to specify 
how many patients with functional heartburn were excluded from the analysis  
 
- In the "Results" and "Discussion" sections, the Authors must write RH instead of FH, that is 
functional heartburn  
 
- In the "discussion" section the Authors state t hat the prevalence of NERD is about 50% in 
Western countries, but there are papers showing that it is as high as 70%  
 
- The discussion is somewhat confusing and this reviewer suggests the Authors to re -write it by 
emphasizing primarily the findings of their  study and thereafter compare them to literature data  
 
- References are lacking, but this reviewer recommends the Authors to add some seminal papers 
in this field, such as those published by the Savarino's group (Savarino E et al, Am J 
Gastroenterol 2008; S avarino E et al, Am J Gastroenterol 2010; Savarino E et al, Gut 2009; 
Savarino E et al, Nat Review Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013).  
 
- At line 4 second page of the "Discussion", please add barrier to the word anti -reflux  
 
- English language must be reviewed  
 
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 controls 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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend 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 indicate 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 received 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 rec eived reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary 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 competing 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 understand 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 author s' 
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