Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prokinetics for the Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: Bayesian Network Meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Eveline deloose  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The paper compares the different available prokinetics available for the treatmen t of FD using 
meta -analysis. Although the paper clearly describes the difference in effectiveness between the 
prokinetics, some aspects could be improved.  
 
Abstract:  
- Use the abbreviation of FD  
- Full description of RCT is missing  
- Include p -values to st ate significance  
 
Background:  
- Background description is too short  
- The authors claim that FD occurs in 30 -40% of the population, while in the paper they refer 
to the prevalence is much lower, please explain  
- Symptom description according to Rome III is  missing, also a general description of FD 
should be included together with the two subtypes of FD  
- An introduction of the different prokinetics is missing  
 
Methods:  
- If there was no language restriction, how where the papers in Chinese and Portuges 
interpreted  
- How was significance determined for the ORs?  
 
Results:  
- Reference 36 in the text on line 190 has the wrong configuration  
- p-values of the ORs are missing  
- Values of fig 3 and table 3 are different, though they represent the same data  
- I have the feeling that there is a lot of overlap between the figures and the figures and the 
tables. The authors should decide with figures or tables would best represent the data and 
eliminate recurring data.  
 
Figures:  
- The resolution is too low  
- Legends need to contain more information  
 
Table 1:  
- Also include the gender and age distribution for each study  
- What were the adverse events per study if present and the dosages/administration route of the 
prokinetics  
- What is meant by the effective vs to tal, please explain as no further explanation is given in 
the text  
 
Discussion:  
- It has been described that FD patients have impaired accommodation. Could it be that the 
lack of symptomatic relief after prokinetics could be due to a negative effect on gas tric 
accommodation?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 hol d 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  
manuscr ipt? 
 
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 h ave 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  
including 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wis h 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 journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prokinetics for the Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: Bayesian Network Meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Eveline deloose  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The paper compares the different available prokinetics available for the treatmen t of FD using 
meta -analysis. Although the paper clearly describes the difference in effectiveness between the 
prokinetics, some aspects could be improved.  
 
Abstract:  
- Use the abbreviation of FD  
- Full description of RCT is missing  
- Include p -values to st ate significance  
 
Background:  
- Background description is too short  
- The authors claim that FD occurs in 30 -40% of the population, while in the paper they refer 
to the prevalence is much lower, please explain  
- Symptom description according to Rome III is  missing, also a general description of FD 
should be included together with the two subtypes of FD  
- An introduction of the different prokinetics is missing  
 
Methods:  
- If there was no language restriction, how where the papers in Chinese and Portuges 
interpreted  
- How was significance determined for the ORs?  
 
Results:  
- Reference 36 in the text on line 190 has the wrong configuration  
- p-values of the ORs are missing  
- Values of fig 3 and table 3 are different, though they represent the same data  
- I have the feeling that there is a lot of overlap between the figures and the figures and the 
tables. The authors should decide with figures or tables would best represent the data and 
eliminate recurring data.  
 
Figures:  
- The resolution is too low  
- Legends need to contain more information  
 
Table 1:  
- Also include the gender and age distribution for each study  
- What were the adverse events per study if present and the dosages/administration route of the 
prokinetics  
- What is meant by the effective vs to tal, please explain as no further explanation is given in 
the text  
 
Discussion:  
- It has been described that FD patients have impaired accommodation. Could it be that the 
lack of symptomatic relief after prokinetics could be due to a negative effect on gas tric 
accommodation?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 hol d 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  
manuscr ipt? 
 
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 h ave 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  
including 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wis h 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 journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prokinetics for the Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: Bayesian Network Meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Apr 2017  
 
Reviewer: Eveline deloose  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The paper compares the different available prokinetics available for the treatmen t of FD using 
meta -analysis. Although the paper clearly describes the difference in effectiveness between the 
prokinetics, some aspects could be improved.  
 
Abstract:  
- Use the abbreviation of FD  
- Full description of RCT is missing  
- Include p -values to st ate significance  
 
Background:  
- Background description is too short  
- The authors claim that FD occurs in 30 -40% of the population, while in the paper they refer 
to the prevalence is much lower, please explain  
- Symptom description according to Rome III is  missing, also a general description of FD 
should be included together with the two subtypes of FD  
- An introduction of the different prokinetics is missing  
 
Methods:  
- If there was no language restriction, how where the papers in Chinese and Portuges 
interpreted  
- How was significance determined for the ORs?  
 
Results:  
- Reference 36 in the text on line 190 has the wrong configuration  
- p-values of the ORs are missing  
- Values of fig 3 and table 3 are different, though they represent the same data  
- I have the feeling that there is a lot of overlap between the figures and the figures and the 
tables. The authors should decide with figures or tables would best represent the data and 
eliminate recurring data.  
 
Figures:  
- The resolution is too low  
- Legends need to contain more information  
 
Table 1:  
- Also include the gender and age distribution for each study  
- What were the adverse events per study if present and the dosages/administration route of the 
prokinetics  
- What is meant by the effective vs to tal, please explain as no further explanation is given in 
the text  
 
Discussion:  
- It has been described that FD patients have impaired accommodation. Could it be that the 
lack of symptomatic relief after prokinetics could be due to a negative effect on gas tric 
accommodation?  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 hol d 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  
manuscr ipt? 
 
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 h ave 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  
including 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wis h 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 journal  
assistant