Title: Genetic evidence causally linking gastroesophageal reflux disease to cholecystitis#A two-
sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript significantly improved and the authors
efficiently incorporated all the changes and additions required by revisors. The critical revision
and implementation in the Discussion section are pertinent and self-explanatory. The manuscript
is essentially ready for publication (after a few minor cosmetic edits)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I would encourage the authors to critically read the abstract one last time and eventually expand
conclusions. The format of the n value is incorrect and should be similar to the text. Ref. nr.47
can be edited to avoid a title in all capital letters.
Title: Genetic evidence causally linking gastroesophageal reflux disease to cholecystitis#A two-
sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript significantly improved and the authors
efficiently incorporated all the changes and additions required by revisors. The critical revision
and implementation in the Discussion section are pertinent and self-explanatory. The manuscript
is essentially ready for publication (after a few minor cosmetic edits)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I would encourage the authors to critically read the abstract one last time and eventually expand
conclusions. The format of the n value is incorrect and should be similar to the text. Ref. nr.47
can be edited to avoid a title in all capital letters.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Genetic evidence causally linking gastroesophageal reflux disease to cholecystitis#A two-
sample Mendelian randomization study
Version: 2 Date: 23 Aug 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The revised manuscript significantly improved and the authors
efficiently incorporated all the changes and additions required by revisors. The critical revision
and implementation in the Discussion section are pertinent and self-explanatory. The manuscript
is essentially ready for publication (after a few minor cosmetic edits)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I would encourage the authors to critically read the abstract one last time and eventually expand
conclusions. The format of the n value is incorrect and should be similar to the text. Ref. nr.47
can be edited to avoid a title in all capital letters.
assistant