Title: Prevalence and Patterns of Peptic Ulcer Disease in Africa: a systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 22 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Hsi-Lan Huang
Reviewer's report:
The authors estimated prevalence and patterns of peptic ulcer disease in Africa using systematic
review and meta-analysis. The topic is of importance, but I have some comments below:
Abstract, PUD should be spelled out in its first appearance, even in abstract.
Table1,  I noticed the publish year ranged from 2000 to 2023, which means the authors
pooled prevalence from different time points. This poses a major concern of the validity of the
pooled results. Could the authors specify the calendar year(s) corresponding to the estimated
prevalence? The authors may pooled the prevalence according to the year of the data collected
rather than the year of publication.
The authors may clarify in the Method section if there is any overlapping of data collected
from the same location/ registry. Overlapping data should be dropped according to pre-specified
criteria.
Table1, what are the I2 for pooled GU and DU?
Table1, please add footnotes. Its difficult to understand what are those * ** *** stand for?
Table 2, significant heterogeneity persisted even after subgroup analysis. Can the authors explore
additional subgroup analysis besides the current variables?
Line-157-158, the author wrote “while the retrospective cross-sectional study design yielded an
I2 of 18% (95%CI: 15 to 21) and 99.26%.” This is not consistent with the results in Table 2.
Discussion, could the authors further elaborate on why Africa had a higher prevalence rate of
peptic ulcer disease in addition to the current explanation?
Title: Prevalence and Patterns of Peptic Ulcer Disease in Africa: a systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 22 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Hsi-Lan Huang
Reviewer's report:
The authors estimated prevalence and patterns of peptic ulcer disease in Africa using systematic
review and meta-analysis. The topic is of importance, but I have some comments below:
Abstract, PUD should be spelled out in its first appearance, even in abstract.
Table1,  I noticed the publish year ranged from 2000 to 2023, which means the authors
pooled prevalence from different time points. This poses a major concern of the validity of the
pooled results. Could the authors specify the calendar year(s) corresponding to the estimated
prevalence? The authors may pooled the prevalence according to the year of the data collected
rather than the year of publication.
The authors may clarify in the Method section if there is any overlapping of data collected
from the same location/ registry. Overlapping data should be dropped according to pre-specified
criteria.
Table1, what are the I2 for pooled GU and DU?
Table1, please add footnotes. Its difficult to understand what are those * ** *** stand for?
Table 2, significant heterogeneity persisted even after subgroup analysis. Can the authors explore
additional subgroup analysis besides the current variables?
Line-157-158, the author wrote “while the retrospective cross-sectional study design yielded an
I2 of 18% (95%CI: 15 to 21) and 99.26%.” This is not consistent with the results in Table 2.
Discussion, could the authors further elaborate on why Africa had a higher prevalence rate of
peptic ulcer disease in addition to the current explanation?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prevalence and Patterns of Peptic Ulcer Disease in Africa: a systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 22 Mar 2025
Reviewer:  Hsi-Lan Huang
Reviewer's report:
The authors estimated prevalence and patterns of peptic ulcer disease in Africa using systematic
review and meta-analysis. The topic is of importance, but I have some comments below:
Abstract, PUD should be spelled out in its first appearance, even in abstract.
Table1,  I noticed the publish year ranged from 2000 to 2023, which means the authors
pooled prevalence from different time points. This poses a major concern of the validity of the
pooled results. Could the authors specify the calendar year(s) corresponding to the estimated
prevalence? The authors may pooled the prevalence according to the year of the data collected
rather than the year of publication.
The authors may clarify in the Method section if there is any overlapping of data collected
from the same location/ registry. Overlapping data should be dropped according to pre-specified
criteria.
Table1, what are the I2 for pooled GU and DU?
Table1, please add footnotes. Its difficult to understand what are those * ** *** stand for?
Table 2, significant heterogeneity persisted even after subgroup analysis. Can the authors explore
additional subgroup analysis besides the current variables?
Line-157-158, the author wrote “while the retrospective cross-sectional study design yielded an
I2 of 18% (95%CI: 15 to 21) and 99.26%.” This is not consistent with the results in Table 2.
Discussion, could the authors further elaborate on why Africa had a higher prevalence rate of
peptic ulcer disease in addition to the current explanation?
assistant