Title: Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and associated factors among university
students in Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2021: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
• The document is well written and organized.
• The reference system is not consistent: the author used a different citation style (in bracket
or as superscript), so either of the style, and references are not cited after a period or full stop.
please use  like -------(xxx). not as ------- . (xxx)
Specific comments
Introduction:  well written and organized. That is ok! But it is better to make it concise and not
exceed a page.
Methods:
1. The author detailed that they selected the three universities, namely Gondar, Wollo, and
Woldia by using the lottery method. But since ¾ of the authors are affiliated with the selected
universities, their selection method seems biased.
2. Sample size determination and sampling procedure Section: Line 98 says that there was a total
of 25,272 undergraduate regular students. But it is not clear whether this number describes all
batches of students or a specific batch?  Is specific batch; it should be clearly stated which batch
and how those specific batches of students were considered. This is because, in the Ethiopian
context, the three universities can accommodate more than this number if all batches of students
are considered.
In this section on line 101; the paragraph started with 322---- Starting a paragraph with a number
is not recommended.
Line 103---the students were then assigned to health and non-health departments. What were
the criteria to categorise in such a way? Which departments from the health sciences and non-
health sciences departments participated? It should be clearly stated!!
Line 104, figure 1, should be cited before the period, like ------ “from each department   (Fig.1).
Not -----"from every department. (Fig.1)
3. Data collection tools and procedures: the data collection tools were clearly described, but the
procedure was not. It should be fine if the authors do it.
In this section, lines 127 and 128 described that BSc nurses and public health professionals were
participating in data collection and supervision. Since most study participants were from non-
health departments, why did the authors select only nurses and public health professionals?
Result section:
It's good, but it needs to be improved.  It is not good to list all results in the table using statements;
that may bore the reader. Therefore, make it short and clear.
1. On line 147, the response rate was 93.7%. But actually, it is not 93.7%; rather, it is 93.5%.
2. Table 2: What do the authors mean by fasting, spicy, fatty, and fried and cooked food? What
are the criteria for such a category?? Otherwise, you must operationalize these terms. Since the
majority of the study participants accessed their food from the university café, which is expected
to be the same; why do you think that there is such variation? Again, in this table, what do you
mean by "quick eating"?? Do you mean the frequency or the speed? If the speed, how do you
measure it?
On this same table, 18.3 % of those who took antipain, 64.1% took paracetamol. How non-health
participants exactly identify whether their antipain is paracetamol or other NSAIDS/analgesics?
Discussion: still good! The discussion is not just about comparing results with other findings,
and it will be good if the authors paraphrase with this intent.
Title: Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and associated factors among university
students in Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2021: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
• The document is well written and organized.
• The reference system is not consistent: the author used a different citation style (in bracket
or as superscript), so either of the style, and references are not cited after a period or full stop.
please use  like -------(xxx). not as ------- . (xxx)
Specific comments
Introduction:  well written and organized. That is ok! But it is better to make it concise and not
exceed a page.
Methods:
1. The author detailed that they selected the three universities, namely Gondar, Wollo, and
Woldia by using the lottery method. But since ¾ of the authors are affiliated with the selected
universities, their selection method seems biased.
2. Sample size determination and sampling procedure Section: Line 98 says that there was a total
of 25,272 undergraduate regular students. But it is not clear whether this number describes all
batches of students or a specific batch?  Is specific batch; it should be clearly stated which batch
and how those specific batches of students were considered. This is because, in the Ethiopian
context, the three universities can accommodate more than this number if all batches of students
are considered.
In this section on line 101; the paragraph started with 322---- Starting a paragraph with a number
is not recommended.
Line 103---the students were then assigned to health and non-health departments. What were
the criteria to categorise in such a way? Which departments from the health sciences and non-
health sciences departments participated? It should be clearly stated!!
Line 104, figure 1, should be cited before the period, like ------ “from each department   (Fig.1).
Not -----"from every department. (Fig.1)
3. Data collection tools and procedures: the data collection tools were clearly described, but the
procedure was not. It should be fine if the authors do it.
In this section, lines 127 and 128 described that BSc nurses and public health professionals were
participating in data collection and supervision. Since most study participants were from non-
health departments, why did the authors select only nurses and public health professionals?
Result section:
It's good, but it needs to be improved.  It is not good to list all results in the table using statements;
that may bore the reader. Therefore, make it short and clear.
1. On line 147, the response rate was 93.7%. But actually, it is not 93.7%; rather, it is 93.5%.
2. Table 2: What do the authors mean by fasting, spicy, fatty, and fried and cooked food? What
are the criteria for such a category?? Otherwise, you must operationalize these terms. Since the
majority of the study participants accessed their food from the university café, which is expected
to be the same; why do you think that there is such variation? Again, in this table, what do you
mean by "quick eating"?? Do you mean the frequency or the speed? If the speed, how do you
measure it?
On this same table, 18.3 % of those who took antipain, 64.1% took paracetamol. How non-health
participants exactly identify whether their antipain is paracetamol or other NSAIDS/analgesics?
Discussion: still good! The discussion is not just about comparing results with other findings,
and it will be good if the authors paraphrase with this intent.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and associated factors among university
students in Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2021: A cross-sectional study
Version: 3 Date: 10 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
General Comments:
• The document is well written and organized.
• The reference system is not consistent: the author used a different citation style (in bracket
or as superscript), so either of the style, and references are not cited after a period or full stop.
please use  like -------(xxx). not as ------- . (xxx)
Specific comments
Introduction:  well written and organized. That is ok! But it is better to make it concise and not
exceed a page.
Methods:
1. The author detailed that they selected the three universities, namely Gondar, Wollo, and
Woldia by using the lottery method. But since ¾ of the authors are affiliated with the selected
universities, their selection method seems biased.
2. Sample size determination and sampling procedure Section: Line 98 says that there was a total
of 25,272 undergraduate regular students. But it is not clear whether this number describes all
batches of students or a specific batch?  Is specific batch; it should be clearly stated which batch
and how those specific batches of students were considered. This is because, in the Ethiopian
context, the three universities can accommodate more than this number if all batches of students
are considered.
In this section on line 101; the paragraph started with 322---- Starting a paragraph with a number
is not recommended.
Line 103---the students were then assigned to health and non-health departments. What were
the criteria to categorise in such a way? Which departments from the health sciences and non-
health sciences departments participated? It should be clearly stated!!
Line 104, figure 1, should be cited before the period, like ------ “from each department   (Fig.1).
Not -----"from every department. (Fig.1)
3. Data collection tools and procedures: the data collection tools were clearly described, but the
procedure was not. It should be fine if the authors do it.
In this section, lines 127 and 128 described that BSc nurses and public health professionals were
participating in data collection and supervision. Since most study participants were from non-
health departments, why did the authors select only nurses and public health professionals?
Result section:
It's good, but it needs to be improved.  It is not good to list all results in the table using statements;
that may bore the reader. Therefore, make it short and clear.
1. On line 147, the response rate was 93.7%. But actually, it is not 93.7%; rather, it is 93.5%.
2. Table 2: What do the authors mean by fasting, spicy, fatty, and fried and cooked food? What
are the criteria for such a category?? Otherwise, you must operationalize these terms. Since the
majority of the study participants accessed their food from the university café, which is expected
to be the same; why do you think that there is such variation? Again, in this table, what do you
mean by "quick eating"?? Do you mean the frequency or the speed? If the speed, how do you
measure it?
On this same table, 18.3 % of those who took antipain, 64.1% took paracetamol. How non-health
participants exactly identify whether their antipain is paracetamol or other NSAIDS/analgesics?
Discussion: still good! The discussion is not just about comparing results with other findings,
and it will be good if the authors paraphrase with this intent.
assistant