Title: PEPTIC ULCER DISEASE AMONG DYSPEPTIC PATIENTS AT ENDOSCOPY
UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR HOSPITAL, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title
# Cancel the word “prevalence” from the title
Abstract
# Background lacks to show the gaps
# Methods& result --somewhat wide, you have make it short and informative
#  What do mean “consecutive sampling method”?
# Result—you have report the prevalence of PUD with 95% CI
# Conclusion—your result and conclusion is not in line with your objective
Background
# You  background is very shallow and should rewrite again  by including  basic component
of  background
# You have to show gap  between  the existing literatures  and what add your paper for  the
existing literatures
Methods
# Study design and setting—please information like date of service that have been give and
overall patient follow endoscopy department
# Your study population and inclusion criteria is the same. If it is you have to merge.
# In your exclusion criteria… what are contraindication you use. You have mentioned in details
# Dependent variable: Proportion of peptic ulcer disease…please cancel the word proportion
#  Socioeconomic status—how could you assesses it?
# How could you assess behavioral factors like smoking and alcohol intake? There are standard
tool for this variable. With single question  you can assesses it
# Taking a 15% estimated proportion of peptic ulcer disease among dyspeptic patients---where
did you get it….if there no pervious study you have use 50%. With these sample size you can
get desired effect.
# A consecutive sampling method---as per my knowledge there is no such type of sampling
method
# Further operation definition is required when  we say the patient have PUD
# I do have doubt with you ethical consideration. All endoscopic procedures you follow
somewhat invasive and need further consent.
# Over all methods is not write in good manner and even not follow appropriate sequence.
Result
# You have to report the prevalence PUD with 95% CI
# In method section you said “variables with a P-value < 0.25 in the bi-variable analysis were
exported to multi-variable analysis”. But in your table 2, there variables whose P-value > 0.25
in the bi-variable analysis but included multi-variable analysis.
# Over all result section is not attractive and need rewrite
Discussion
# You discussion is very shallow and should rewrite again.
# You said “The major strength of this study was its prospective study design” what does
mean???
# Total I disagree with Strength and limitation of the study.
Conclusion and recommendations
# Your conclusion in line with your objective and should rewrite again.
# Your recommendations is also based on your finding.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
# I have seen this part in method section. Please cancel one them
Consent for publication
# Your consent for publication not correct and please check it
Reference
# The reference was not write as per standard and even inserted manually
Title: PEPTIC ULCER DISEASE AMONG DYSPEPTIC PATIENTS AT ENDOSCOPY
UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR HOSPITAL, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title
# Cancel the word “prevalence” from the title
Abstract
# Background lacks to show the gaps
# Methods& result --somewhat wide, you have make it short and informative
#  What do mean “consecutive sampling method”?
# Result—you have report the prevalence of PUD with 95% CI
# Conclusion—your result and conclusion is not in line with your objective
Background
# You  background is very shallow and should rewrite again  by including  basic component
of  background
# You have to show gap  between  the existing literatures  and what add your paper for  the
existing literatures
Methods
# Study design and setting—please information like date of service that have been give and
overall patient follow endoscopy department
# Your study population and inclusion criteria is the same. If it is you have to merge.
# In your exclusion criteria… what are contraindication you use. You have mentioned in details
# Dependent variable: Proportion of peptic ulcer disease…please cancel the word proportion
#  Socioeconomic status—how could you assesses it?
# How could you assess behavioral factors like smoking and alcohol intake? There are standard
tool for this variable. With single question  you can assesses it
# Taking a 15% estimated proportion of peptic ulcer disease among dyspeptic patients---where
did you get it….if there no pervious study you have use 50%. With these sample size you can
get desired effect.
# A consecutive sampling method---as per my knowledge there is no such type of sampling
method
# Further operation definition is required when  we say the patient have PUD
# I do have doubt with you ethical consideration. All endoscopic procedures you follow
somewhat invasive and need further consent.
# Over all methods is not write in good manner and even not follow appropriate sequence.
Result
# You have to report the prevalence PUD with 95% CI
# In method section you said “variables with a P-value < 0.25 in the bi-variable analysis were
exported to multi-variable analysis”. But in your table 2, there variables whose P-value > 0.25
in the bi-variable analysis but included multi-variable analysis.
# Over all result section is not attractive and need rewrite
Discussion
# You discussion is very shallow and should rewrite again.
# You said “The major strength of this study was its prospective study design” what does
mean???
# Total I disagree with Strength and limitation of the study.
Conclusion and recommendations
# Your conclusion in line with your objective and should rewrite again.
# Your recommendations is also based on your finding.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
# I have seen this part in method section. Please cancel one them
Consent for publication
# Your consent for publication not correct and please check it
Reference
# The reference was not write as per standard and even inserted manually
Please review this paper.
user
Title: PEPTIC ULCER DISEASE AMONG DYSPEPTIC PATIENTS AT ENDOSCOPY
UNIT, UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR HOSPITAL, NORTH WEST ETHIOPIA
Version: 1 Date: 29 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
Title
# Cancel the word “prevalence” from the title
Abstract
# Background lacks to show the gaps
# Methods& result --somewhat wide, you have make it short and informative
#  What do mean “consecutive sampling method”?
# Result—you have report the prevalence of PUD with 95% CI
# Conclusion—your result and conclusion is not in line with your objective
Background
# You  background is very shallow and should rewrite again  by including  basic component
of  background
# You have to show gap  between  the existing literatures  and what add your paper for  the
existing literatures
Methods
# Study design and setting—please information like date of service that have been give and
overall patient follow endoscopy department
# Your study population and inclusion criteria is the same. If it is you have to merge.
# In your exclusion criteria… what are contraindication you use. You have mentioned in details
# Dependent variable: Proportion of peptic ulcer disease…please cancel the word proportion
#  Socioeconomic status—how could you assesses it?
# How could you assess behavioral factors like smoking and alcohol intake? There are standard
tool for this variable. With single question  you can assesses it
# Taking a 15% estimated proportion of peptic ulcer disease among dyspeptic patients---where
did you get it….if there no pervious study you have use 50%. With these sample size you can
get desired effect.
# A consecutive sampling method---as per my knowledge there is no such type of sampling
method
# Further operation definition is required when  we say the patient have PUD
# I do have doubt with you ethical consideration. All endoscopic procedures you follow
somewhat invasive and need further consent.
# Over all methods is not write in good manner and even not follow appropriate sequence.
Result
# You have to report the prevalence PUD with 95% CI
# In method section you said “variables with a P-value < 0.25 in the bi-variable analysis were
exported to multi-variable analysis”. But in your table 2, there variables whose P-value > 0.25
in the bi-variable analysis but included multi-variable analysis.
# Over all result section is not attractive and need rewrite
Discussion
# You discussion is very shallow and should rewrite again.
# You said “The major strength of this study was its prospective study design” what does
mean???
# Total I disagree with Strength and limitation of the study.
Conclusion and recommendations
# Your conclusion in line with your objective and should rewrite again.
# Your recommendations is also based on your finding.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
# I have seen this part in method section. Please cancel one them
Consent for publication
# Your consent for publication not correct and please check it
Reference
# The reference was not write as per standard and even inserted manually
assistant