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: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article with interest. Please see my following comments:
1. Page 7, line 20: “After obtaining consent of those who selected the option 2) or 3), we started
eradication therapy in each of them.” This is somewhat confusing statement. Are you trying to
say patients selecting either of the eradication therapy were started based on their preference
and others were followed without treatment who did not consent?
2. Can the authors also give details regarding patients who chose option 1) i.e. follow-up without
choosing any therapy. It would be interesting to know if any of these patients had eradication.
3. In limitations, the authors should also mention the specific type of PPI studies i.e.
esomeprazole, as well as retrospective nature of the study that accounts for bias.
4. In conclusion, the authors should propose a randomized controlled trial comparing PPI
monotherapy to combination regimen for NHPH eradication as the next step to assess the true
efficacy of each therapy.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see comments 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: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article with interest. Please see my following comments:
1. Page 7, line 20: “After obtaining consent of those who selected the option 2) or 3), we started
eradication therapy in each of them.” This is somewhat confusing statement. Are you trying to
say patients selecting either of the eradication therapy were started based on their preference
and others were followed without treatment who did not consent?
2. Can the authors also give details regarding patients who chose option 1) i.e. follow-up without
choosing any therapy. It would be interesting to know if any of these patients had eradication.
3. In limitations, the authors should also mention the specific type of PPI studies i.e.
esomeprazole, as well as retrospective nature of the study that accounts for bias.
4. In conclusion, the authors should propose a randomized controlled trial comparing PPI
monotherapy to combination regimen for NHPH eradication as the next step to assess the true
efficacy of each therapy.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see comments 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: 1 Date: 15 Feb 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (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 technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I read the article with interest. Please see my following comments:
1. Page 7, line 20: “After obtaining consent of those who selected the option 2) or 3), we started
eradication therapy in each of them.” This is somewhat confusing statement. Are you trying to
say patients selecting either of the eradication therapy were started based on their preference
and others were followed without treatment who did not consent?
2. Can the authors also give details regarding patients who chose option 1) i.e. follow-up without
choosing any therapy. It would be interesting to know if any of these patients had eradication.
3. In limitations, the authors should also mention the specific type of PPI studies i.e.
esomeprazole, as well as retrospective nature of the study that accounts for bias.
4. In conclusion, the authors should propose a randomized controlled trial comparing PPI
monotherapy to combination regimen for NHPH eradication as the next step to assess the true
efficacy of each therapy.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see comments above.
assistant