Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0756-4 (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Evaluation of Risk Factors for Perforated Peptic Ulcer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 02 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Giuseppe Fanelli  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The aims of the study are very significants and  although data obtained are in contrast to the 
literature could be truly innovative and of interest.  
 
However article is not well written and doesn't deep analyzed all obtained results, focusing only 
on some of them.  
 
Moreover, there may be same limitation  in sample examined (e.g. single institution, same ethnic 
group..) that have to be highlighted.  
 
There are some missing data and repetitions in the Methods section (e.g. number of patients).  
 
Did you performed a chest/abdominal RX to patients? In this case i t could be of interest compare 
RX vs CT (although RX isn't gold standard, CT is time -consuming and not always available).  
 
Finally it's necessary to ampliate Introduction and Discussion sections.  
 
Tables and figure are well structured.  
 
I hope in your early re-submission of the article.  
 
 
 
Thanks  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or sa lary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to al l of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my nam e will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the aut hors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made availabl e under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will no t be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal