Title: Long-Term Assessment of Helicobacter pylori cagA EPIYA Motif Changes and
Pathology Outcomes in Gastric Biopsies of Dyspeptic Patients: 10-year Follow-up
Version: 4 Date: 02 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Changes in pathological findings should be differentiated from clinical picture Gastric
pathology related to change of demographics should be reported Last sentence should be called
conclusions The one before is obscure and should be defined If the result is non significant it
should be omitted from the abstract Methods Authors should define what they did with marginal
cases; those they had one positive biopsy and negative RUT  or positive RUT and negative
histology Do they vrepeated endoscopy and biopsy taking or there are no data since those
patients were excluded from the study Actually RUT could be positive if non H.pylori bacteria
producing urease are present Do authors reuse biopsy forcepts? Authors should determine
what was the role of PCR in H. pylori diagnosis Was it  an exclusion criterion if not enough
DNA was available to perform PCR Results:First paragraph of results needs some linguistic
adaptation Changes in patient symptomatology and in gastric pathology should be presented
in different sections To evaluated the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics to
clinical picture and gastric pathology or any other secondary target should be evaluated using
logistic regression analysis ( univariated and multivariated) instead of mixed chi-square/t-test
and logistic regression Pictures use would be helpful
Title: Long-Term Assessment of Helicobacter pylori cagA EPIYA Motif Changes and
Pathology Outcomes in Gastric Biopsies of Dyspeptic Patients: 10-year Follow-up
Version: 4 Date: 02 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Changes in pathological findings should be differentiated from clinical picture Gastric
pathology related to change of demographics should be reported Last sentence should be called
conclusions The one before is obscure and should be defined If the result is non significant it
should be omitted from the abstract Methods Authors should define what they did with marginal
cases; those they had one positive biopsy and negative RUT  or positive RUT and negative
histology Do they vrepeated endoscopy and biopsy taking or there are no data since those
patients were excluded from the study Actually RUT could be positive if non H.pylori bacteria
producing urease are present Do authors reuse biopsy forcepts? Authors should determine
what was the role of PCR in H. pylori diagnosis Was it  an exclusion criterion if not enough
DNA was available to perform PCR Results:First paragraph of results needs some linguistic
adaptation Changes in patient symptomatology and in gastric pathology should be presented
in different sections To evaluated the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics to
clinical picture and gastric pathology or any other secondary target should be evaluated using
logistic regression analysis ( univariated and multivariated) instead of mixed chi-square/t-test
and logistic regression Pictures use would be helpful
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Long-Term Assessment of Helicobacter pylori cagA EPIYA Motif Changes and
Pathology Outcomes in Gastric Biopsies of Dyspeptic Patients: 10-year Follow-up
Version: 4 Date: 02 Oct 2024
Reviewer:  Panagiotis Tsibouris
Reviewer's report:
Abstract Changes in pathological findings should be differentiated from clinical picture Gastric
pathology related to change of demographics should be reported Last sentence should be called
conclusions The one before is obscure and should be defined If the result is non significant it
should be omitted from the abstract Methods Authors should define what they did with marginal
cases; those they had one positive biopsy and negative RUT  or positive RUT and negative
histology Do they vrepeated endoscopy and biopsy taking or there are no data since those
patients were excluded from the study Actually RUT could be positive if non H.pylori bacteria
producing urease are present Do authors reuse biopsy forcepts? Authors should determine
what was the role of PCR in H. pylori diagnosis Was it  an exclusion criterion if not enough
DNA was available to perform PCR Results:First paragraph of results needs some linguistic
adaptation Changes in patient symptomatology and in gastric pathology should be presented
in different sections To evaluated the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics to
clinical picture and gastric pathology or any other secondary target should be evaluated using
logistic regression analysis ( univariated and multivariated) instead of mixed chi-square/t-test
and logistic regression Pictures use would be helpful
assistant