Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Pharmacological regimens for eradication of Heli cobacter pylori: an overview of 
systematic  reviews and network meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer: György Miklós Buzás  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a nice study, beinn the first "systematic review of systematic reviews", using a robust 
statistical methodology. I raise the fo llowing questions which might be commented in the final 
form of the manuscript.  
 
 
 
1. Why was the data aquisition stopped in 2012 (completed in 2013): in 2014 -15, several 
fine meta -analyses were published.  
 
 
2. Whatfor no liguistic restriction was used, becaus e  only 1 eligible Chinese study was 
found - this is a very low yield! There are no details in the supplimenray material on the 
exclusion of foreign (not English) language studies.  
 
 
3. The quality of the meta -analysis was assessed by the AMSTAR method, publ ished in 
2014: the retrospective use of a new quality assessment  method seems to me 
inappropriate.  
 
 
4. There are no data on heterogeneity I2 or other test), publication bias of the studies 
included (Funnel plot, Egger's or other test)  
 
 
5. In the reference l ists of the meta -analysis elected, some of the titles are overlapping. 
Wouldn't it be possible the some studies were included in the network analysis twice or 
even more manyfold and thus they could change the results?  
 
 
6. Some typing errors must be correct ed 
 
 
7. In the reference list, the name of many journals is not correctly shown (for intance: New 
England journal of medicine and many others) - the authors must adhere to the 
instructions . 
Regardless of the above questions, the study is sound and strenghte n once again that 2nd 
generation PPI's and novel quinolones achieve better eradication rates than 1st generation PPI's 
and first -line antibiotics - this must be kept in mind by all practitioners or clinical trailists and 
researchers when prescribing  these  therapies.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to  the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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, conside ring 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 hold 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  
manuscript?  
 
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 have no competing interest  
 
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: Pharmacological regimens for eradication of Heli cobacter pylori: an overview of 
systematic  reviews and network meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer: György Miklós Buzás  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a nice study, beinn the first "systematic review of systematic reviews", using a robust 
statistical methodology. I raise the fo llowing questions which might be commented in the final 
form of the manuscript.  
 
 
 
1. Why was the data aquisition stopped in 2012 (completed in 2013): in 2014 -15, several 
fine meta -analyses were published.  
 
 
2. Whatfor no liguistic restriction was used, becaus e  only 1 eligible Chinese study was 
found - this is a very low yield! There are no details in the supplimenray material on the 
exclusion of foreign (not English) language studies.  
 
 
3. The quality of the meta -analysis was assessed by the AMSTAR method, publ ished in 
2014: the retrospective use of a new quality assessment  method seems to me 
inappropriate.  
 
 
4. There are no data on heterogeneity I2 or other test), publication bias of the studies 
included (Funnel plot, Egger's or other test)  
 
 
5. In the reference l ists of the meta -analysis elected, some of the titles are overlapping. 
Wouldn't it be possible the some studies were included in the network analysis twice or 
even more manyfold and thus they could change the results?  
 
 
6. Some typing errors must be correct ed 
 
 
7. In the reference list, the name of many journals is not correctly shown (for intance: New 
England journal of medicine and many others) - the authors must adhere to the 
instructions . 
Regardless of the above questions, the study is sound and strenghte n once again that 2nd 
generation PPI's and novel quinolones achieve better eradication rates than 1st generation PPI's 
and first -line antibiotics - this must be kept in mind by all practitioners or clinical trailists and 
researchers when prescribing  these  therapies.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to  the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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, conside ring 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 hold 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  
manuscript?  
 
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 have no competing interest  
 
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: Pharmacological regimens for eradication of Heli cobacter pylori: an overview of 
systematic  reviews and network meta -analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer: György Miklós Buzás  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a nice study, beinn the first "systematic review of systematic reviews", using a robust 
statistical methodology. I raise the fo llowing questions which might be commented in the final 
form of the manuscript.  
 
 
 
1. Why was the data aquisition stopped in 2012 (completed in 2013): in 2014 -15, several 
fine meta -analyses were published.  
 
 
2. Whatfor no liguistic restriction was used, becaus e  only 1 eligible Chinese study was 
found - this is a very low yield! There are no details in the supplimenray material on the 
exclusion of foreign (not English) language studies.  
 
 
3. The quality of the meta -analysis was assessed by the AMSTAR method, publ ished in 
2014: the retrospective use of a new quality assessment  method seems to me 
inappropriate.  
 
 
4. There are no data on heterogeneity I2 or other test), publication bias of the studies 
included (Funnel plot, Egger's or other test)  
 
 
5. In the reference l ists of the meta -analysis elected, some of the titles are overlapping. 
Wouldn't it be possible the some studies were included in the network analysis twice or 
even more manyfold and thus they could change the results?  
 
 
6. Some typing errors must be correct ed 
 
 
7. In the reference list, the name of many journals is not correctly shown (for intance: New 
England journal of medicine and many others) - the authors must adhere to the 
instructions . 
Regardless of the above questions, the study is sound and strenghte n once again that 2nd 
generation PPI's and novel quinolones achieve better eradication rates than 1st generation PPI's 
and first -line antibiotics - this must be kept in mind by all practitioners or clinical trailists and 
researchers when prescribing  these  therapies.  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to  the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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, conside ring 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 hold 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  
manuscript?  
 
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 have no competing interest  
 
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