Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0579-8 (2017)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Triple Therapy versus Sequential Therapy for  the first -line Helicobacter pylori Eradication  
 
Version: 0 Date: 11 Sep 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Chang Seok  Bang  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
Thanks to authors for presenting important data to BMC gastroenterology. Although authors 
presented w ell-organized and well -written manuscript, it is hard to determine the value of this 
data without local antibiotics resistance data. In the recently published article in BMC 
gastroenterology (Comparison of sequential therapy and amoxicillin/tetracycline co ntaining 
bismuth quadruple therapy for the first -line eradication of Helicobacter pylori: a prospective, 
multi -center, randomized clinical trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul 26;16(1):79. doi: 
10.1186/s12876 -016-0490 -8.), 10 day sequential therapy did not r each the 90% eradication rate 
in the PP analysis, which is not acceptable for the 1st line H. pylori eradication regimen. 
However, yours reached acceptable goal with the same regimen. Local antibiotics resistance 
pattern is needed to explain this differenc e in the same country. Presenting superiority of one 
regimen compared to another without this data cannot be generalized.  
 
In the abstract section 14 day sequential -> 10 day  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional stat istical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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 salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of thi s 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 all 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 tha t I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will  be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available unde r 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 included as  confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal