Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  A meta -analysis of long follow -up outcomes of laparoscop ic Nissen (total) versus Toupet 
(270°) fundoplication for gastro -esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials 
in adults  
 
Version:  0 Date:  10 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: Oliver Koch  
 
Reviewer's report:  
thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the recently s ubmitted manuscript: „A meta -
analysis of long follow -up outcomes of laparoscopic Nissen (Total) versus Toupet (270°) 
fundoplication for gastro -esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials in 
adults"  
 
Comments to the authors:  
The aim of y our study was to determine which procedure Nissen or Toupet is the best for 
patients with GERD. The answer you give is that LNF and LTF had equivalently good control of 
GERD and obtained similar satisfaction rate. Several systematic reviews and meta -analys es have 
come to the same conclusion  before. The results of the study add very little new information.  
 
A few things have to be edited before publication:  
1. In general the study is too long, especially ´background´ and ´discussion´. For example the 
first paragraph in the ´background´ could be deleted.    Information when the first LARS 
was performed etc. is not necessary for the topic you are discussing.  
2. Quality of life after surgery is maybe the most important outcome parameter, why did you 
not includ e this parameter, please comment in the paper.  
 
Page 16, line 9: Tipping errror "But these four reports included trials in which LNF was 
performed with various circumferences (range 200° -270°)Plesae correct in LTF.  
Kind regards,  
 
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 statis tical 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 c orrections 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 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 t his 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 salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applie d 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 p eer 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 aut hors' 
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 inclu ded 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:  A meta -analysis of long follow -up outcomes of laparoscop ic Nissen (total) versus Toupet 
(270°) fundoplication for gastro -esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials 
in adults  
 
Version:  0 Date:  10 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: Oliver Koch  
 
Reviewer's report:  
thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the recently s ubmitted manuscript: „A meta -
analysis of long follow -up outcomes of laparoscopic Nissen (Total) versus Toupet (270°) 
fundoplication for gastro -esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials in 
adults"  
 
Comments to the authors:  
The aim of y our study was to determine which procedure Nissen or Toupet is the best for 
patients with GERD. The answer you give is that LNF and LTF had equivalently good control of 
GERD and obtained similar satisfaction rate. Several systematic reviews and meta -analys es have 
come to the same conclusion  before. The results of the study add very little new information.  
 
A few things have to be edited before publication:  
1. In general the study is too long, especially ´background´ and ´discussion´. For example the 
first paragraph in the ´background´ could be deleted.    Information when the first LARS 
was performed etc. is not necessary for the topic you are discussing.  
2. Quality of life after surgery is maybe the most important outcome parameter, why did you 
not includ e this parameter, please comment in the paper.  
 
Page 16, line 9: Tipping errror "But these four reports included trials in which LNF was 
performed with various circumferences (range 200° -270°)Plesae correct in LTF.  
Kind regards,  
 
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 statis tical 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 c orrections 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 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 t his 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 salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applie d 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 p eer 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 aut hors' 
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 inclu ded 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:  A meta -analysis of long follow -up outcomes of laparoscop ic Nissen (total) versus Toupet 
(270°) fundoplication for gastro -esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials 
in adults  
 
Version:  0 Date:  10 Mar 2016  
 
Reviewer: Oliver Koch  
 
Reviewer's report:  
thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the recently s ubmitted manuscript: „A meta -
analysis of long follow -up outcomes of laparoscopic Nissen (Total) versus Toupet (270°) 
fundoplication for gastro -esophageal reflux disease based on randomized controlled trials in 
adults"  
 
Comments to the authors:  
The aim of y our study was to determine which procedure Nissen or Toupet is the best for 
patients with GERD. The answer you give is that LNF and LTF had equivalently good control of 
GERD and obtained similar satisfaction rate. Several systematic reviews and meta -analys es have 
come to the same conclusion  before. The results of the study add very little new information.  
 
A few things have to be edited before publication:  
1. In general the study is too long, especially ´background´ and ´discussion´. For example the 
first paragraph in the ´background´ could be deleted.    Information when the first LARS 
was performed etc. is not necessary for the topic you are discussing.  
2. Quality of life after surgery is maybe the most important outcome parameter, why did you 
not includ e this parameter, please comment in the paper.  
 
Page 16, line 9: Tipping errror "But these four reports included trials in which LNF was 
performed with various circumferences (range 200° -270°)Plesae correct in LTF.  
Kind regards,  
 
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 statis tical 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 c orrections 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 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 t his 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 salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applie d 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 p eer 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 aut hors' 
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 inclu ded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant