Reviewer’ s report
Title: Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori gastric Helicobacters in Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 0Date: 29 Mar 2019
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear
objective that addresses a testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clearobjective)?Yes - there is a clear objectiveDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls andanalysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?No - there are minor issuesEXECUTION - Arethe experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?No- there are minor issuesSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?No -there are issues with the statistics in the studyINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?No - there are minor issuesOVERALLMANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If not, canrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisionsPEERREVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have tested a relatively largesample group (n=421) of dyspeptic patients in Iran for the presence of non-Helicobacter pylorigastric Helicobacters (NHPGH) and have identified five different NHPGH species. They haveused standard histological examination and molecular diagnostic techniques to identify theNHPGHs. The study should be of interest to colleagues working in this area but a number ofissues need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication.REQUESTED REVISIONS:From a literature search it appears that this is the first study of its kind in Iran. If this is the case
then I think it should be highligthed and discussed appropriately.What part of Iran were the
samples collected from? More details on the samples need to be provided. Were the PCRamplicons sequenced for confirmation? If yes, then please provide the details on how, and where,they were sequenced. Any sequences generated should be submitted to a public database likeGenBank. If there was no sequencing performed, then a few representative amplicons of eachspecies should be sequenced. This would provide strong support to the data alreadygenerated.Page 6 line 15 to 20: This is the first (and last) mention of Gastrospirillum specieswithout providing any explanation/background to the reader. The author should clarify thissection. The number of Helicobacter species identified is not clear. The authors say that 53NHPGHs were identified but then say that 10 H. suis, 10 H. felis, 20 H. salomonis, 13 Hheilimannii and 7 H. bizzozeroni were identified which is a total of 60 (see also Table 3). The errorshould be corrected/explained. It is not clear whether there were any co-infections of NHPGHsidentified in the samples? If there were, this important data must be added. The authors claim tohave used statistical methods in the analysis of their data but no statistical calculations arepresented in the results section. For example, the statement on Page 7 line 25 "there was nosignificant difference among histological groups" is not supported by any significance/proability(p) value (see also Table 3)The discussion does not include any comparison with similar studies inother countries. This reviewer suggests that the results of the studies below should be compared
and discussed by the authors based on the results of their own work. Ali B, et al Presence of gastric
Helicobacter species in children suffering fromgastric disorders in Southern Turkey. Helicobacter.
2018 Oct;23(5):e12511.Øverby A, et al Prevalence of Gastric Non-Helicobacterpylori-Helicobacters in Japanese Patients with Gastric Disease. Digestion.2017;95(1):61-66.Liu J, et alPrevalence of Coinfection with Gastric Non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) Species inHelicobacter pylori-infected Patients Suffering from Gastric Disease in Beijing, China.Helicobacter. 2015 Aug;20(4):284-90.ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: The qualityof the English is adequate, but I would still recommend that the authors seek the assistance of anative English-speaking editor to improve the grammar, syntax and overall presentation of themanuscript. Particular attention needs to be given to the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion.Page
4 line 39: What is "16S rRNA PCR of housekeeping genes (urea, ureB and ure AB)"? I think this
is an error.Figure 1 is not necessary and should be removed Note: This reviewer report can bedownloaded - see attached pdf file.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori gastric Helicobacters in Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 0Date: 29 Mar 2019
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear
objective that addresses a testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clearobjective)?Yes - there is a clear objectiveDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls andanalysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?No - there are minor issuesEXECUTION - Arethe experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?No- there are minor issuesSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?No -there are issues with the statistics in the studyINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?No - there are minor issuesOVERALLMANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If not, canrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisionsPEERREVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have tested a relatively largesample group (n=421) of dyspeptic patients in Iran for the presence of non-Helicobacter pylorigastric Helicobacters (NHPGH) and have identified five different NHPGH species. They haveused standard histological examination and molecular diagnostic techniques to identify theNHPGHs. The study should be of interest to colleagues working in this area but a number ofissues need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication.REQUESTED REVISIONS:From a literature search it appears that this is the first study of its kind in Iran. If this is the case
then I think it should be highligthed and discussed appropriately.What part of Iran were the
samples collected from? More details on the samples need to be provided. Were the PCRamplicons sequenced for confirmation? If yes, then please provide the details on how, and where,they were sequenced. Any sequences generated should be submitted to a public database likeGenBank. If there was no sequencing performed, then a few representative amplicons of eachspecies should be sequenced. This would provide strong support to the data alreadygenerated.Page 6 line 15 to 20: This is the first (and last) mention of Gastrospirillum specieswithout providing any explanation/background to the reader. The author should clarify thissection. The number of Helicobacter species identified is not clear. The authors say that 53NHPGHs were identified but then say that 10 H. suis, 10 H. felis, 20 H. salomonis, 13 Hheilimannii and 7 H. bizzozeroni were identified which is a total of 60 (see also Table 3). The errorshould be corrected/explained. It is not clear whether there were any co-infections of NHPGHsidentified in the samples? If there were, this important data must be added. The authors claim tohave used statistical methods in the analysis of their data but no statistical calculations arepresented in the results section. For example, the statement on Page 7 line 25 "there was nosignificant difference among histological groups" is not supported by any significance/proability(p) value (see also Table 3)The discussion does not include any comparison with similar studies inother countries. This reviewer suggests that the results of the studies below should be compared
and discussed by the authors based on the results of their own work. Ali B, et al Presence of gastric
Helicobacter species in children suffering fromgastric disorders in Southern Turkey. Helicobacter.
2018 Oct;23(5):e12511.Øverby A, et al Prevalence of Gastric Non-Helicobacterpylori-Helicobacters in Japanese Patients with Gastric Disease. Digestion.2017;95(1):61-66.Liu J, et alPrevalence of Coinfection with Gastric Non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) Species inHelicobacter pylori-infected Patients Suffering from Gastric Disease in Beijing, China.Helicobacter. 2015 Aug;20(4):284-90.ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: The qualityof the English is adequate, but I would still recommend that the authors seek the assistance of anative English-speaking editor to improve the grammar, syntax and overall presentation of themanuscript. Particular attention needs to be given to the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion.Page
4 line 39: What is "16S rRNA PCR of housekeeping genes (urea, ureB and ure AB)"? I think this
is an error.Figure 1 is not necessary and should be removed Note: This reviewer report can bedownloaded - see attached pdf file.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto 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: Prevalence of non Helicobacter pylori gastric Helicobacters in Iranian dyspeptic patients
Version: 0Date: 29 Mar 2019
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear
objective that addresses a testable research question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clearobjective)?Yes - there is a clear objectiveDESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls andanalysis protocols) appropriate for the objective?No - there are minor issuesEXECUTION - Arethe experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?No- there are minor issuesSTATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?No -there are issues with the statistics in the studyINTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not overstated?No - there are minor issuesOVERALLMANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound? If not, canrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Probably - with minor revisionsPEERREVIEWER COMMENTS: GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have tested a relatively largesample group (n=421) of dyspeptic patients in Iran for the presence of non-Helicobacter pylorigastric Helicobacters (NHPGH) and have identified five different NHPGH species. They haveused standard histological examination and molecular diagnostic techniques to identify theNHPGHs. The study should be of interest to colleagues working in this area but a number ofissues need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication.REQUESTED REVISIONS:From a literature search it appears that this is the first study of its kind in Iran. If this is the case
then I think it should be highligthed and discussed appropriately.What part of Iran were the
samples collected from? More details on the samples need to be provided. Were the PCRamplicons sequenced for confirmation? If yes, then please provide the details on how, and where,they were sequenced. Any sequences generated should be submitted to a public database likeGenBank. If there was no sequencing performed, then a few representative amplicons of eachspecies should be sequenced. This would provide strong support to the data alreadygenerated.Page 6 line 15 to 20: This is the first (and last) mention of Gastrospirillum specieswithout providing any explanation/background to the reader. The author should clarify thissection. The number of Helicobacter species identified is not clear. The authors say that 53NHPGHs were identified but then say that 10 H. suis, 10 H. felis, 20 H. salomonis, 13 Hheilimannii and 7 H. bizzozeroni were identified which is a total of 60 (see also Table 3). The errorshould be corrected/explained. It is not clear whether there were any co-infections of NHPGHsidentified in the samples? If there were, this important data must be added. The authors claim tohave used statistical methods in the analysis of their data but no statistical calculations arepresented in the results section. For example, the statement on Page 7 line 25 "there was nosignificant difference among histological groups" is not supported by any significance/proability(p) value (see also Table 3)The discussion does not include any comparison with similar studies inother countries. This reviewer suggests that the results of the studies below should be compared
and discussed by the authors based on the results of their own work. Ali B, et al Presence of gastric
Helicobacter species in children suffering fromgastric disorders in Southern Turkey. Helicobacter.
2018 Oct;23(5):e12511.Øverby A, et al Prevalence of Gastric Non-Helicobacterpylori-Helicobacters in Japanese Patients with Gastric Disease. Digestion.2017;95(1):61-66.Liu J, et alPrevalence of Coinfection with Gastric Non-Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter (NHPH) Species inHelicobacter pylori-infected Patients Suffering from Gastric Disease in Beijing, China.Helicobacter. 2015 Aug;20(4):284-90.ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: The qualityof the English is adequate, but I would still recommend that the authors seek the assistance of anative English-speaking editor to improve the grammar, syntax and overall presentation of themanuscript. Particular attention needs to be given to the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion.Page
4 line 39: What is "16S rRNA PCR of housekeeping genes (urea, ureB and ure AB)"? I think this
is an error.Figure 1 is not necessary and should be removed Note: This reviewer report can bedownloaded - see attached pdf file.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statisticsQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant