Title: Comparison of vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of gastric
endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer: An updated systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors should provide the registration number of this meta-analysis.
2. In the methods section, the authors should have specified the follow-up time for adverse
reactions in the vonoprazan and PPI groups.
3. Is there a risk of bias due to the different dosages administered in the vonoprazan and PPI
groups?
4. Why did the authors choose lansoprazole versus vonoprazan for the comparison of adverse
effects rather than other PPIs?
5. Language and grammar should be extensively improved.
#Some of the authors’ expressions are confusing, for example, the sentence “Is vonoprazan
superior to the PPIs remains controversial”.
#The sentence “there was no significant difference between the two groups in the healing rate
after ESD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65, P = 0.70) with nonheterogeneity (I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3A)”
should be revised as “there was no significant difference between the two groups in the healing
rate after ESD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65, P = 0.70) with no significant heterogeneity (I2 =
0%) (Fig. 3A)”.
6. The authors mentioned that “The assessment of various items showed a low risk of bias among
the included studies”, it seems unlikely that all studies were rated as low risk of bias in the meta-
analysis, and the authors should reassess all studies.
Title: Comparison of vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of gastric
endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer: An updated systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors should provide the registration number of this meta-analysis.
2. In the methods section, the authors should have specified the follow-up time for adverse
reactions in the vonoprazan and PPI groups.
3. Is there a risk of bias due to the different dosages administered in the vonoprazan and PPI
groups?
4. Why did the authors choose lansoprazole versus vonoprazan for the comparison of adverse
effects rather than other PPIs?
5. Language and grammar should be extensively improved.
#Some of the authors’ expressions are confusing, for example, the sentence “Is vonoprazan
superior to the PPIs remains controversial”.
#The sentence “there was no significant difference between the two groups in the healing rate
after ESD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65, P = 0.70) with nonheterogeneity (I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3A)”
should be revised as “there was no significant difference between the two groups in the healing
rate after ESD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65, P = 0.70) with no significant heterogeneity (I2 =
0%) (Fig. 3A)”.
6. The authors mentioned that “The assessment of various items showed a low risk of bias among
the included studies”, it seems unlikely that all studies were rated as low risk of bias in the meta-
analysis, and the authors should reassess all studies.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparison of vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of gastric
endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcer: An updated systematic review and meta-
analysis
Version: 2 Date: 31 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
1. The authors should provide the registration number of this meta-analysis.
2. In the methods section, the authors should have specified the follow-up time for adverse
reactions in the vonoprazan and PPI groups.
3. Is there a risk of bias due to the different dosages administered in the vonoprazan and PPI
groups?
4. Why did the authors choose lansoprazole versus vonoprazan for the comparison of adverse
effects rather than other PPIs?
5. Language and grammar should be extensively improved.
#Some of the authors’ expressions are confusing, for example, the sentence “Is vonoprazan
superior to the PPIs remains controversial”.
#The sentence “there was no significant difference between the two groups in the healing rate
after ESD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65, P = 0.70) with nonheterogeneity (I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3A)”
should be revised as “there was no significant difference between the two groups in the healing
rate after ESD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72-1.65, P = 0.70) with no significant heterogeneity (I2 =
0%) (Fig. 3A)”.
6. The authors mentioned that “The assessment of various items showed a low risk of bias among
the included studies”, it seems unlikely that all studies were rated as low risk of bias in the meta-
analysis, and the authors should reassess all studies.
assistant