Title: Development of a gastric cancer risk calculator for questionnaire-based surveillance of
Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 1 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the revised manuscript is that it can be
published after a Minor Revision. I have specified my recommendations and some changes to
be made below. The authors have done well in implementing research and presenting very good
quality figures. The authors need to improve some aspects of the manuscript after considering
the following comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript authored by Gohari and colleagues. Overall, the
paper was well-written, and the narrative flow smooth and enticing. The study design was well
thought out and seems rigorously implemented. I have identified the following issues for further
improvement:
1. Add these two references and discuss the similarities and differences between your study and
the published research.
Zhu, X., Lv, J., Zhu, M. et al. Development, validation, and evaluation of a risk assessment tool
for personalized screening of gastric cancer in Chinese populations. BMC Med 21, 159 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02864-0
Trinh, T.T.K., Lee, K., Oh, JK. et al. Cluster of lifestyle risk factors for stomach cancer and
screening behaviors among Korean adults. Sci Rep 13, 17503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-023-44470-3
2. This developed risk calculator is more culture and ethnic group-specific. Therefore,
generalizability to other populations may not be possible. I would invite the authors to clarify
this point in their abstracts and conclusions. Currently, the manuscript is written so that full
generalizability is possible.
3. Was barbecued food not highlighted in your questionnaires?
4. Mixed use of British and American English, e.g., aetiology and etiology."
Title: Development of a gastric cancer risk calculator for questionnaire-based surveillance of
Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 1 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the revised manuscript is that it can be
published after a Minor Revision. I have specified my recommendations and some changes to
be made below. The authors have done well in implementing research and presenting very good
quality figures. The authors need to improve some aspects of the manuscript after considering
the following comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript authored by Gohari and colleagues. Overall, the
paper was well-written, and the narrative flow smooth and enticing. The study design was well
thought out and seems rigorously implemented. I have identified the following issues for further
improvement:
1. Add these two references and discuss the similarities and differences between your study and
the published research.
Zhu, X., Lv, J., Zhu, M. et al. Development, validation, and evaluation of a risk assessment tool
for personalized screening of gastric cancer in Chinese populations. BMC Med 21, 159 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02864-0
Trinh, T.T.K., Lee, K., Oh, JK. et al. Cluster of lifestyle risk factors for stomach cancer and
screening behaviors among Korean adults. Sci Rep 13, 17503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-023-44470-3
2. This developed risk calculator is more culture and ethnic group-specific. Therefore,
generalizability to other populations may not be possible. I would invite the authors to clarify
this point in their abstracts and conclusions. Currently, the manuscript is written so that full
generalizability is possible.
3. Was barbecued food not highlighted in your questionnaires?
4. Mixed use of British and American English, e.g., aetiology and etiology."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development of a gastric cancer risk calculator for questionnaire-based surveillance of
Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 1 Date: 28 Dec 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: My overall impression of the revised manuscript is that it can be
published after a Minor Revision. I have specified my recommendations and some changes to
be made below. The authors have done well in implementing research and presenting very good
quality figures. The authors need to improve some aspects of the manuscript after considering
the following comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript authored by Gohari and colleagues. Overall, the
paper was well-written, and the narrative flow smooth and enticing. The study design was well
thought out and seems rigorously implemented. I have identified the following issues for further
improvement:
1. Add these two references and discuss the similarities and differences between your study and
the published research.
Zhu, X., Lv, J., Zhu, M. et al. Development, validation, and evaluation of a risk assessment tool
for personalized screening of gastric cancer in Chinese populations. BMC Med 21, 159 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02864-0
Trinh, T.T.K., Lee, K., Oh, JK. et al. Cluster of lifestyle risk factors for stomach cancer and
screening behaviors among Korean adults. Sci Rep 13, 17503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-023-44470-3
2. This developed risk calculator is more culture and ethnic group-specific. Therefore,
generalizability to other populations may not be possible. I would invite the authors to clarify
this point in their abstracts and conclusions. Currently, the manuscript is written so that full
generalizability is possible.
3. Was barbecued food not highlighted in your questionnaires?
4. Mixed use of British and American English, e.g., aetiology and etiology."
assistant