Title: Vonoprazan-based triple and dual therapy versus bismuth-based quadruple therapy for
Helicobacter pylori infection in China: A three-arm, randomised clinical trial protocol
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: All in all this manuscript is much improved over the previous
version.  The revised version is improved with the addition of the purpose / rationale to the
manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the revised version the order of the authors has been changed. This is a red flag. Kuan Li is
now last authors. Did this come with consent from the other authors?
According to COPE, once a paper has undergone revision, if one or more authors are added or
removed or the author order is changed, the journal will require a letter signed by all the original
and additional authors stating the reason for the change and that all authors agree on the addition,
removal, and/or reordering .
I could now access https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=141314 Thanks for that
The authors now highlight a comparable study (reference 24), and I appreciate that. I was
looking for the rationale and the rebuttal suggests that “accumulating clinical evidence is
crucial to support its (VPZ for Helicobacter pylori infection)  approval for this indication”. The
introduction now reflects this thinking. (line 123 and further)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The selection of patients comes from the pool of 13C-UBT positive tests. that is reasonable.
It is clear to me now that 13C-urea breath test is indeed being used both for patient selection/
recruitment and for assessing the study outcome
Title: Vonoprazan-based triple and dual therapy versus bismuth-based quadruple therapy for
Helicobacter pylori infection in China: A three-arm, randomised clinical trial protocol
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: All in all this manuscript is much improved over the previous
version.  The revised version is improved with the addition of the purpose / rationale to the
manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the revised version the order of the authors has been changed. This is a red flag. Kuan Li is
now last authors. Did this come with consent from the other authors?
According to COPE, once a paper has undergone revision, if one or more authors are added or
removed or the author order is changed, the journal will require a letter signed by all the original
and additional authors stating the reason for the change and that all authors agree on the addition,
removal, and/or reordering .
I could now access https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=141314 Thanks for that
The authors now highlight a comparable study (reference 24), and I appreciate that. I was
looking for the rationale and the rebuttal suggests that “accumulating clinical evidence is
crucial to support its (VPZ for Helicobacter pylori infection)  approval for this indication”. The
introduction now reflects this thinking. (line 123 and further)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The selection of patients comes from the pool of 13C-UBT positive tests. that is reasonable.
It is clear to me now that 13C-urea breath test is indeed being used both for patient selection/
recruitment and for assessing the study outcome
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Vonoprazan-based triple and dual therapy versus bismuth-based quadruple therapy for
Helicobacter pylori infection in China: A three-arm, randomised clinical trial protocol
Version: 3 Date: 23 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: All in all this manuscript is much improved over the previous
version.  The revised version is improved with the addition of the purpose / rationale to the
manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
In the revised version the order of the authors has been changed. This is a red flag. Kuan Li is
now last authors. Did this come with consent from the other authors?
According to COPE, once a paper has undergone revision, if one or more authors are added or
removed or the author order is changed, the journal will require a letter signed by all the original
and additional authors stating the reason for the change and that all authors agree on the addition,
removal, and/or reordering .
I could now access https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=141314 Thanks for that
The authors now highlight a comparable study (reference 24), and I appreciate that. I was
looking for the rationale and the rebuttal suggests that “accumulating clinical evidence is
crucial to support its (VPZ for Helicobacter pylori infection)  approval for this indication”. The
introduction now reflects this thinking. (line 123 and further)
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The selection of patients comes from the pool of 13C-UBT positive tests. that is reasonable.
It is clear to me now that 13C-urea breath test is indeed being used both for patient selection/
recruitment and for assessing the study outcome
assistant