Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The global, regional and national burden of peptic ulcer disease from 1990
to 2019: a population-based study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
02 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
The authors have studied " The global, regional, and national burden of peptic
ulcer disease in 204 countries and territories, 1990 to 2019: a population-based
study". A 30-year trend analysis of the prevalence of epidemiological and
sociodemographic of PUD. The study design seems adequate and the collection
of data sufficient to allow publication as a full article. After this revision, the
article will be more clear and readable. The tenses would need a major review.
Specific comments:
Title - The title may stand without the 204 countries and territories. Since the
authors have used global and the 204 can still come up in the methods.
Abstract - The authors' conclusion on risk factors and the cause of increasing
prevalence needs to be reviewed. This study did not test risk factors. You cannot
be categorical about the cause.
Introduction - 
1. References for statements of facts are important.
2. Some statements require rephrasing
Materials and Method -
1. It was not stated whether the authors sought permission before using the data.
Except you are sure this is not important. If you sought permission kindly state it.
2. What is a super-region? How were they classified?
3. No mention of the number of subjects that were in the data used.
Results -
1. Throughout the prose in the result section, the authors kept mentioning the
real values of the groups which were not mentioned in the methods
2. In some areas, the authors didn't tell us the exact period they were referring to
e.g…In recent decades? Which decades exactly? Check the marked texts for a
clearer picture of my point.
3. Some part of the results were discussing findings. Some of these were
repeated in the discussion section. Check the marked part
4. Authors need to be specific with periods, regions, etc they are referring to
Discussion - 
1. This can be improved upon. Not so easy to follow in the current version
2. If authors have not done a fresh study, do not envisage clearly and certainly an
increase in PUD prevalence after 2019 especially when the last year of the
review was 2019
3. The conclusion on the cause of increasing PUD prevalence being NSAIDs - I
am not aware of any result where drugs review. If not let us be cautious in
making inferences that were not tested.
4. Kindly convince your reviewer that you have identified risk factors for the
increasing trend in the prevalence of PUD. It is not clear at the moment how you
were sure of NSAIDs which is a known risk factor for PUD as the cause of the
increasing PUD. You had a running battle choosing between H.pylori and
NSAIDs and the discussion in this regard was confusing.
Summary -
A very sound review of secondary data. It will pass across major information if
well rewritten to stay focused on the trend in the line of sociodemographics and
epidemiology. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The global, regional and national burden of peptic ulcer disease from 1990
to 2019: a population-based study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
02 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
The authors have studied " The global, regional, and national burden of peptic
ulcer disease in 204 countries and territories, 1990 to 2019: a population-based
study". A 30-year trend analysis of the prevalence of epidemiological and
sociodemographic of PUD. The study design seems adequate and the collection
of data sufficient to allow publication as a full article. After this revision, the
article will be more clear and readable. The tenses would need a major review.
Specific comments:
Title - The title may stand without the 204 countries and territories. Since the
authors have used global and the 204 can still come up in the methods.
Abstract - The authors' conclusion on risk factors and the cause of increasing
prevalence needs to be reviewed. This study did not test risk factors. You cannot
be categorical about the cause.
Introduction - 
1. References for statements of facts are important.
2. Some statements require rephrasing
Materials and Method -
1. It was not stated whether the authors sought permission before using the data.
Except you are sure this is not important. If you sought permission kindly state it.
2. What is a super-region? How were they classified?
3. No mention of the number of subjects that were in the data used.
Results -
1. Throughout the prose in the result section, the authors kept mentioning the
real values of the groups which were not mentioned in the methods
2. In some areas, the authors didn't tell us the exact period they were referring to
e.g…In recent decades? Which decades exactly? Check the marked texts for a
clearer picture of my point.
3. Some part of the results were discussing findings. Some of these were
repeated in the discussion section. Check the marked part
4. Authors need to be specific with periods, regions, etc they are referring to
Discussion - 
1. This can be improved upon. Not so easy to follow in the current version
2. If authors have not done a fresh study, do not envisage clearly and certainly an
increase in PUD prevalence after 2019 especially when the last year of the
review was 2019
3. The conclusion on the cause of increasing PUD prevalence being NSAIDs - I
am not aware of any result where drugs review. If not let us be cautious in
making inferences that were not tested.
4. Kindly convince your reviewer that you have identified risk factors for the
increasing trend in the prevalence of PUD. It is not clear at the moment how you
were sure of NSAIDs which is a known risk factor for PUD as the cause of the
increasing PUD. You had a running battle choosing between H.pylori and
NSAIDs and the discussion in this regard was confusing.
Summary -
A very sound review of secondary data. It will pass across major information if
well rewritten to stay focused on the trend in the line of sociodemographics and
epidemiology. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
The global, regional and national burden of peptic ulcer disease from 1990
to 2019: a population-based study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
02 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
The authors have studied " The global, regional, and national burden of peptic
ulcer disease in 204 countries and territories, 1990 to 2019: a population-based
study". A 30-year trend analysis of the prevalence of epidemiological and
sociodemographic of PUD. The study design seems adequate and the collection
of data sufficient to allow publication as a full article. After this revision, the
article will be more clear and readable. The tenses would need a major review.
Specific comments:
Title - The title may stand without the 204 countries and territories. Since the
authors have used global and the 204 can still come up in the methods.
Abstract - The authors' conclusion on risk factors and the cause of increasing
prevalence needs to be reviewed. This study did not test risk factors. You cannot
be categorical about the cause.
Introduction - 
1. References for statements of facts are important.
2. Some statements require rephrasing
Materials and Method -
1. It was not stated whether the authors sought permission before using the data.
Except you are sure this is not important. If you sought permission kindly state it.
2. What is a super-region? How were they classified?
3. No mention of the number of subjects that were in the data used.
Results -
1. Throughout the prose in the result section, the authors kept mentioning the
real values of the groups which were not mentioned in the methods
2. In some areas, the authors didn't tell us the exact period they were referring to
e.g…In recent decades? Which decades exactly? Check the marked texts for a
clearer picture of my point.
3. Some part of the results were discussing findings. Some of these were
repeated in the discussion section. Check the marked part
4. Authors need to be specific with periods, regions, etc they are referring to
Discussion - 
1. This can be improved upon. Not so easy to follow in the current version
2. If authors have not done a fresh study, do not envisage clearly and certainly an
increase in PUD prevalence after 2019 especially when the last year of the
review was 2019
3. The conclusion on the cause of increasing PUD prevalence being NSAIDs - I
am not aware of any result where drugs review. If not let us be cautious in
making inferences that were not tested.
4. Kindly convince your reviewer that you have identified risk factors for the
increasing trend in the prevalence of PUD. It is not clear at the moment how you
were sure of NSAIDs which is a known risk factor for PUD as the cause of the
increasing PUD. You had a running battle choosing between H.pylori and
NSAIDs and the discussion in this regard was confusing.
Summary -
A very sound review of secondary data. It will pass across major information if
well rewritten to stay focused on the trend in the line of sociodemographics and
epidemiology. 
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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 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 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
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
assistant