Reviewer's report 
 Survey of General Practitioners' Knowledge About Helicobacter pylori Infection Title: 
 1  17 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 andrew S day Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Canbaz et al. presents the results of a survey of Helicobacter pylori-specific 
knowledge in general practitioners in Turkey. 
Overall and General Comments: 
This manuscript is a straightforward questionnaire-based study assessing the knowledge of a group of general practitioners in a region of Turkey in regards to Helicobacter pylori infection and their approach to management of this infection. Interesting data is presented clearly by the authors who 
discuss many of the current and ongoing issues relating to the management of H. pylori infection. 
Many of these issues are generic to practitioners throughout the world, but some are unique to the authorsâ €™ region. 
The research question is well-defined and is novel in this population of practitioners (but not 
elsewhere). The methods are well described by the authors. The presentation of the data arising 
from this survey is reasonable. However, the results could be more clearly outlined in the abstract of 
the manuscript.The discussion in the manuscript is generally supported by the data established. The 
title of the manuscript outlines appropriately the focus of the manuscript. Some sections of the 
manuscript would benefit from attention to the English and grammar. 
Summary of Comments: 
Canbaz et al. report on the Helicobacter pylori-related knowledge of a group of general practitioners 
in one region of Turkey. The manuscript is well-presented and straight-forward. The generalisability 
of the data arising and the relevance of the results to practitioners elsewhere in the world need to be 
emphasized more clearly by the authors. None-the-less this manuscript serves to highlight some 
generic issues relating the primary care approach to H. pylori infection and the options for the management of this very prevalent infection. 
I would recommend that this manuscript is appropriate for publication after the authors have 
attended to the issues raised above. 
Thank you for having asked me to participate in the peer review process. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Specific Comments: 
1. Some of the issues raised by the authors are generic; however other issues may be specific to the 
region studied. The authors may consider commenting more on the generalisability of the 
conclusions they draw from this study. 
2. It is unclear if all the practitioners included in this survey had equal access to all the diagnostic 
tests referred to by the authors. For instance, stool antigen testing may have been available to only a 
subset of the respondents. 
3. The authors should consider commenting whether there had been any recent specific educational 
initiatives focusing on H. pylori within the region of interest. 
4. It is not clear if all the general practitioners provided answers for each of the various questions. For instance, it appears that only 92 practitioners gave an answer to the questions to the scenarios 
(as presented in Table 1). 
5. The authors should consider revising the discussion of the manuscript so that it is more cohesive. 
The last paragraph, for example, is unnecessarily convoluted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Minor Comments: 
1. The grammar in several areas of the manuscript could be improved with careful revision. 
2. The name â €œHelicobacter pyloriâ € needs to be presented correctly throughout the manuscript 
(in italics, with no capitalization of pylori). 
3. The authors use the term â €œbiopsy urease testâ €: is this referring to rapid urease testing? This 
would not be expected to be a test readily available in general practice (as requires endoscopic 
biopsy). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Survey of General Practitioners' Knowledge About Helicobacter pylori Infection Title: 
 1  17 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 andrew S day Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Canbaz et al. presents the results of a survey of Helicobacter pylori-specific 
knowledge in general practitioners in Turkey. 
Overall and General Comments: 
This manuscript is a straightforward questionnaire-based study assessing the knowledge of a group of general practitioners in a region of Turkey in regards to Helicobacter pylori infection and their approach to management of this infection. Interesting data is presented clearly by the authors who 
discuss many of the current and ongoing issues relating to the management of H. pylori infection. 
Many of these issues are generic to practitioners throughout the world, but some are unique to the authorsâ €™ region. 
The research question is well-defined and is novel in this population of practitioners (but not 
elsewhere). The methods are well described by the authors. The presentation of the data arising 
from this survey is reasonable. However, the results could be more clearly outlined in the abstract of 
the manuscript.The discussion in the manuscript is generally supported by the data established. The 
title of the manuscript outlines appropriately the focus of the manuscript. Some sections of the 
manuscript would benefit from attention to the English and grammar. 
Summary of Comments: 
Canbaz et al. report on the Helicobacter pylori-related knowledge of a group of general practitioners 
in one region of Turkey. The manuscript is well-presented and straight-forward. The generalisability 
of the data arising and the relevance of the results to practitioners elsewhere in the world need to be 
emphasized more clearly by the authors. None-the-less this manuscript serves to highlight some 
generic issues relating the primary care approach to H. pylori infection and the options for the management of this very prevalent infection. 
I would recommend that this manuscript is appropriate for publication after the authors have 
attended to the issues raised above. 
Thank you for having asked me to participate in the peer review process. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Specific Comments: 
1. Some of the issues raised by the authors are generic; however other issues may be specific to the 
region studied. The authors may consider commenting more on the generalisability of the 
conclusions they draw from this study. 
2. It is unclear if all the practitioners included in this survey had equal access to all the diagnostic 
tests referred to by the authors. For instance, stool antigen testing may have been available to only a 
subset of the respondents. 
3. The authors should consider commenting whether there had been any recent specific educational 
initiatives focusing on H. pylori within the region of interest. 
4. It is not clear if all the general practitioners provided answers for each of the various questions. For instance, it appears that only 92 practitioners gave an answer to the questions to the scenarios 
(as presented in Table 1). 
5. The authors should consider revising the discussion of the manuscript so that it is more cohesive. 
The last paragraph, for example, is unnecessarily convoluted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Minor Comments: 
1. The grammar in several areas of the manuscript could be improved with careful revision. 
2. The name â €œHelicobacter pyloriâ € needs to be presented correctly throughout the manuscript 
(in italics, with no capitalization of pylori). 
3. The authors use the term â €œbiopsy urease testâ €: is this referring to rapid urease testing? This 
would not be expected to be a test readily available in general practice (as requires endoscopic 
biopsy). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Survey of General Practitioners' Knowledge About Helicobacter pylori Infection Title: 
 1  17 November 2004 Version: Date: 
 andrew S day Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The manuscript by Canbaz et al. presents the results of a survey of Helicobacter pylori-specific 
knowledge in general practitioners in Turkey. 
Overall and General Comments: 
This manuscript is a straightforward questionnaire-based study assessing the knowledge of a group of general practitioners in a region of Turkey in regards to Helicobacter pylori infection and their approach to management of this infection. Interesting data is presented clearly by the authors who 
discuss many of the current and ongoing issues relating to the management of H. pylori infection. 
Many of these issues are generic to practitioners throughout the world, but some are unique to the authorsâ €™ region. 
The research question is well-defined and is novel in this population of practitioners (but not 
elsewhere). The methods are well described by the authors. The presentation of the data arising 
from this survey is reasonable. However, the results could be more clearly outlined in the abstract of 
the manuscript.The discussion in the manuscript is generally supported by the data established. The 
title of the manuscript outlines appropriately the focus of the manuscript. Some sections of the 
manuscript would benefit from attention to the English and grammar. 
Summary of Comments: 
Canbaz et al. report on the Helicobacter pylori-related knowledge of a group of general practitioners 
in one region of Turkey. The manuscript is well-presented and straight-forward. The generalisability 
of the data arising and the relevance of the results to practitioners elsewhere in the world need to be 
emphasized more clearly by the authors. None-the-less this manuscript serves to highlight some 
generic issues relating the primary care approach to H. pylori infection and the options for the management of this very prevalent infection. 
I would recommend that this manuscript is appropriate for publication after the authors have 
attended to the issues raised above. 
Thank you for having asked me to participate in the peer review process. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Specific Comments: 
1. Some of the issues raised by the authors are generic; however other issues may be specific to the 
region studied. The authors may consider commenting more on the generalisability of the 
conclusions they draw from this study. 
2. It is unclear if all the practitioners included in this survey had equal access to all the diagnostic 
tests referred to by the authors. For instance, stool antigen testing may have been available to only a 
subset of the respondents. 
3. The authors should consider commenting whether there had been any recent specific educational 
initiatives focusing on H. pylori within the region of interest. 
4. It is not clear if all the general practitioners provided answers for each of the various questions. For instance, it appears that only 92 practitioners gave an answer to the questions to the scenarios 
(as presented in Table 1). 
5. The authors should consider revising the discussion of the manuscript so that it is more cohesive. 
The last paragraph, for example, is unnecessarily convoluted. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
Minor Comments: 
1. The grammar in several areas of the manuscript could be improved with careful revision. 
2. The name â €œHelicobacter pyloriâ € needs to be presented correctly throughout the manuscript 
(in italics, with no capitalization of pylori). 
3. The authors use the term â €œbiopsy urease testâ €: is this referring to rapid urease testing? This 
would not be expected to be a test readily available in general practice (as requires endoscopic 
biopsy). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant