Reviewer’s report  
 
Title:  The prevalence of gastric heterotopia of the proximal esophagus is underestimated , but 
preneoplasia is rare - correlation with Barrett's esophagus  
 
Version:  0 Date:  15 Feb 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Deborah  Saraggi  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This is a prospective study of the prevalence of inlet patch (IP) in a series of 372 patients.  
 
Hypothesis and purpose of study are clearly presented. In my opinion the most interesting part is 
the correlation between the prevalence of IP with different definitions of Barrett's  esophagus 
(with and without the presence of intestinal metaplasia). They have found a significant 
association only with columnar metaplasia. I have some concerns about the year in which the 
study was conducted (2002), even if some studies have demonstrate d that the reported rate has 
not increased with the use of fiberoptic endoscopes and videoendoscopes (I suggest to cite them).  
 
English should be revised by a native speaker and there are some typos (in line 75 parenthesis is 
not closed, scatterdiagram) so I suggest to check the text again.  
 
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 speci fy 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 applyin g 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 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 
includi ng any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://cr eativecommons.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 j ournal  
Reviewer’s report  
 
Title:  The prevalence of gastric heterotopia of the proximal esophagus is underestimated , but 
preneoplasia is rare - correlation with Barrett's esophagus  
 
Version:  0 Date:  15 Feb 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Deborah  Saraggi  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This is a prospective study of the prevalence of inlet patch (IP) in a series of 372 patients.  
 
Hypothesis and purpose of study are clearly presented. In my opinion the most interesting part is 
the correlation between the prevalence of IP with different definitions of Barrett's  esophagus 
(with and without the presence of intestinal metaplasia). They have found a significant 
association only with columnar metaplasia. I have some concerns about the year in which the 
study was conducted (2002), even if some studies have demonstrate d that the reported rate has 
not increased with the use of fiberoptic endoscopes and videoendoscopes (I suggest to cite them).  
 
English should be revised by a native speaker and there are some typos (in line 75 parenthesis is 
not closed, scatterdiagram) so I suggest to check the text again.  
 
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 speci fy 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 applyin g 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 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 
includi ng any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://cr eativecommons.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 j ournal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report  
 
Title:  The prevalence of gastric heterotopia of the proximal esophagus is underestimated , but 
preneoplasia is rare - correlation with Barrett's esophagus  
 
Version:  0 Date:  15 Feb 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Deborah  Saraggi  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
This is a prospective study of the prevalence of inlet patch (IP) in a series of 372 patients.  
 
Hypothesis and purpose of study are clearly presented. In my opinion the most interesting part is 
the correlation between the prevalence of IP with different definitions of Barrett's  esophagus 
(with and without the presence of intestinal metaplasia). They have found a significant 
association only with columnar metaplasia. I have some concerns about the year in which the 
study was conducted (2002), even if some studies have demonstrate d that the reported rate has 
not increased with the use of fiberoptic endoscopes and videoendoscopes (I suggest to cite them).  
 
English should be revised by a native speaker and there are some typos (in line 75 parenthesis is 
not closed, scatterdiagram) so I suggest to check the text again.  
 
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 speci fy 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 applyin g 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 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 
includi ng any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://cr eativecommons.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 j ournal  
assistant