Title: Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of
Helicobacter pylori: A community-based study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Review on the manuscript by Chiang TH, et al., entitled “Effectiveness and brand
interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of Helicobacter
pylori.”
This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of two different brands of PG testing in the
prediction of the premalignant gastric lesions.
The following comments are for the reference of authors:
Major comments
1. The topic of this manuscript is not novel. Reference 11 and 13 are the papers with the similar
topic. Nevertheless, this manuscript was conducted in a real-world setting and a larger cohort
to validate the performance of the PG testing.
2. According to Figure 1, among the subjects with positive results (n=284), only the half of them
(49.6%, n=141) who tested positive for both tests. The authors should discuss these.
3. It was a pity that only 37% (n=105) of the subjects who tested positive for either one of the two
tests received endoscopic examination. I suggest the authors to present a supplementary table,
which compared the baseline characteristics between the subjects who received endoscopic
examination and those who tested positive but did not receive endoscopic examination.
4. Table 1 showed that “A history of hypertension was more common in those who tested positive
than those who tested negative (38.7% vs. 29.9%, P=0.002).” This may be because the subjects
who tested positive were older than those who tested negative. The authors should address some
explanations for these to avoid misleading.
5. In the paragraph of “Performance of the whole program,” please add the rates in detail for
the comparisons of “the positivity rate of the parallel combination was higher than that of the
individual tests (both P<0.05)” and “the positivity rates were slightly higher for males (P=0.43),
but were significantly higher in the older-age group (#50 years) than the younger-age group
(30-49 years) (P=0.016).”
6. Figure 3 showed the results of endoscopic examination, which was performed in the subjects
who tested positive for either one of the two tests. If the definition of “positive” were PG-I <30
ng/mL or PG-I/II ratio <3 for The GastroPanel® test and PG-I #70 ng/mL and PG-I/II ratio #3
for The LZ-Test®, why the rates of OLGA stage 0 and OLGIM stage 0 were 87.6% and 81.9%,
respectively ? The rates were too high to be unreasonable.
Title: Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of
Helicobacter pylori: A community-based study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Review on the manuscript by Chiang TH, et al., entitled “Effectiveness and brand
interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of Helicobacter
pylori.”
This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of two different brands of PG testing in the
prediction of the premalignant gastric lesions.
The following comments are for the reference of authors:
Major comments
1. The topic of this manuscript is not novel. Reference 11 and 13 are the papers with the similar
topic. Nevertheless, this manuscript was conducted in a real-world setting and a larger cohort
to validate the performance of the PG testing.
2. According to Figure 1, among the subjects with positive results (n=284), only the half of them
(49.6%, n=141) who tested positive for both tests. The authors should discuss these.
3. It was a pity that only 37% (n=105) of the subjects who tested positive for either one of the two
tests received endoscopic examination. I suggest the authors to present a supplementary table,
which compared the baseline characteristics between the subjects who received endoscopic
examination and those who tested positive but did not receive endoscopic examination.
4. Table 1 showed that “A history of hypertension was more common in those who tested positive
than those who tested negative (38.7% vs. 29.9%, P=0.002).” This may be because the subjects
who tested positive were older than those who tested negative. The authors should address some
explanations for these to avoid misleading.
5. In the paragraph of “Performance of the whole program,” please add the rates in detail for
the comparisons of “the positivity rate of the parallel combination was higher than that of the
individual tests (both P<0.05)” and “the positivity rates were slightly higher for males (P=0.43),
but were significantly higher in the older-age group (#50 years) than the younger-age group
(30-49 years) (P=0.016).”
6. Figure 3 showed the results of endoscopic examination, which was performed in the subjects
who tested positive for either one of the two tests. If the definition of “positive” were PG-I <30
ng/mL or PG-I/II ratio <3 for The GastroPanel® test and PG-I #70 ng/mL and PG-I/II ratio #3
for The LZ-Test®, why the rates of OLGA stage 0 and OLGIM stage 0 were 87.6% and 81.9%,
respectively ? The rates were too high to be unreasonable.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Brand interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of
Helicobacter pylori: A community-based study
Version: 1 Date: 11 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
Review on the manuscript by Chiang TH, et al., entitled “Effectiveness and brand
interchangeability of pepsinogen tests in the real-world setting after eradication of Helicobacter
pylori.”
This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of two different brands of PG testing in the
prediction of the premalignant gastric lesions.
The following comments are for the reference of authors:
Major comments
1. The topic of this manuscript is not novel. Reference 11 and 13 are the papers with the similar
topic. Nevertheless, this manuscript was conducted in a real-world setting and a larger cohort
to validate the performance of the PG testing.
2. According to Figure 1, among the subjects with positive results (n=284), only the half of them
(49.6%, n=141) who tested positive for both tests. The authors should discuss these.
3. It was a pity that only 37% (n=105) of the subjects who tested positive for either one of the two
tests received endoscopic examination. I suggest the authors to present a supplementary table,
which compared the baseline characteristics between the subjects who received endoscopic
examination and those who tested positive but did not receive endoscopic examination.
4. Table 1 showed that “A history of hypertension was more common in those who tested positive
than those who tested negative (38.7% vs. 29.9%, P=0.002).” This may be because the subjects
who tested positive were older than those who tested negative. The authors should address some
explanations for these to avoid misleading.
5. In the paragraph of “Performance of the whole program,” please add the rates in detail for
the comparisons of “the positivity rate of the parallel combination was higher than that of the
individual tests (both P<0.05)” and “the positivity rates were slightly higher for males (P=0.43),
but were significantly higher in the older-age group (#50 years) than the younger-age group
(30-49 years) (P=0.016).”
6. Figure 3 showed the results of endoscopic examination, which was performed in the subjects
who tested positive for either one of the two tests. If the definition of “positive” were PG-I <30
ng/mL or PG-I/II ratio <3 for The GastroPanel® test and PG-I #70 ng/mL and PG-I/II ratio #3
for The LZ-Test®, why the rates of OLGA stage 0 and OLGIM stage 0 were 87.6% and 81.9%,
respectively ? The rates were too high to be unreasonable.
assistant