Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 18 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of non-
gastritis normal subjects. The study design and methods are good. Authors revised manuscript
according to the advice of the reviewer, and the revised manuscript has much improved. It looks
perfect, but I think it needs some more revisions.
Points for revision
1. Authors raised a problem of the ABC method in which group A includes pseudo-A subjects. Is
the new cut-off value of gastrin possible to differentiate pseudo-A subjects from true-A subjects?
Authors may need some additional data to answer the problem, or make some more discussions
and revise the conclusions.
2. Authors only described good data (specificity and PPV) in the abstract. Sensitivity and other
indices should also be described.
3. Is ‘non-gastritis’ adequate? I think ‘normal stomach’ may be better, because ‘non-gastritis’
include some other pathological findings than gastritis, such as intestinal metaplasia and atrophy.
4. Supplementary table 2: What is ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ in the second line of the table? For
example, ‘normal’ and ‘non-normal’ may be better. The title of the table should also be changed
adequately.
5. This study also raised the normal values of pepsinogens. Authors can describe them or make
one more article.
6. Line 137: Supplementary Fig. 1 should be described. ‘Additional file’ may not be needed.
7. Figures and tables need adequate margins so that they could be printed completely.
8. A blank line should be added before ‘References’.
Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 18 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of non-
gastritis normal subjects. The study design and methods are good. Authors revised manuscript
according to the advice of the reviewer, and the revised manuscript has much improved. It looks
perfect, but I think it needs some more revisions.
Points for revision
1. Authors raised a problem of the ABC method in which group A includes pseudo-A subjects. Is
the new cut-off value of gastrin possible to differentiate pseudo-A subjects from true-A subjects?
Authors may need some additional data to answer the problem, or make some more discussions
and revise the conclusions.
2. Authors only described good data (specificity and PPV) in the abstract. Sensitivity and other
indices should also be described.
3. Is ‘non-gastritis’ adequate? I think ‘normal stomach’ may be better, because ‘non-gastritis’
include some other pathological findings than gastritis, such as intestinal metaplasia and atrophy.
4. Supplementary table 2: What is ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ in the second line of the table? For
example, ‘normal’ and ‘non-normal’ may be better. The title of the table should also be changed
adequately.
5. This study also raised the normal values of pepsinogens. Authors can describe them or make
one more article.
6. Line 137: Supplementary Fig. 1 should be described. ‘Additional file’ may not be needed.
7. Figures and tables need adequate margins so that they could be printed completely.
8. A blank line should be added before ‘References’.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 5 Date: 18 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of non-
gastritis normal subjects. The study design and methods are good. Authors revised manuscript
according to the advice of the reviewer, and the revised manuscript has much improved. It looks
perfect, but I think it needs some more revisions.
Points for revision
1. Authors raised a problem of the ABC method in which group A includes pseudo-A subjects. Is
the new cut-off value of gastrin possible to differentiate pseudo-A subjects from true-A subjects?
Authors may need some additional data to answer the problem, or make some more discussions
and revise the conclusions.
2. Authors only described good data (specificity and PPV) in the abstract. Sensitivity and other
indices should also be described.
3. Is ‘non-gastritis’ adequate? I think ‘normal stomach’ may be better, because ‘non-gastritis’
include some other pathological findings than gastritis, such as intestinal metaplasia and atrophy.
4. Supplementary table 2: What is ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ in the second line of the table? For
example, ‘normal’ and ‘non-normal’ may be better. The title of the table should also be changed
adequately.
5. This study also raised the normal values of pepsinogens. Authors can describe them or make
one more article.
6. Line 137: Supplementary Fig. 1 should be described. ‘Additional file’ may not be needed.
7. Figures and tables need adequate margins so that they could be printed completely.
8. A blank line should be added before ‘References’.
assistant