Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0589-6 (2017)

Reviewer ’s repo rt 
 
Title: Levofloxacin or Clarithromycin -based quadruple regimens: what is the best alternative as  
first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication in a country with high resistance rates for  
both antibiotics?  
 
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Deng -Chyang Wu  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This manuscript aimed to evaluate the efficacy of levofloxacin or clarithromycin -based 
sequential therapy on the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in area with high resistance rates for 
levofloxacin and clarithromycin. This study reported clarithromycin -based sequential therapy 
was better than levofloxacin -based sequential therapy as first -line therapy.  
 
 
 
 
Comments and questions as follows:  
 
 
 
1. This study is a retrospective study and there is no clear description in subject enrollment 
process, data collectio n and how to exclude patient not fit criteria, chart review? 
Interview? Sampling bias was a matter of great concern for this study  
 
 
2. Both group A and group B are one hundred subjects and it seems not naturally happened 
in clinical practice. How did author s decide which subjects, with the same regimen, was 
included? How did authors make sure this recruitment strategy did not influence the 
efficacy?   
 
 
3. We can find significant difference of treatment response about metronidazole or 
tinidazole as well as hig h or low dose of metronidazole in clarithromycin -base group, 
however this phenomenon was not found in levofloxacin -base group, which implied 
different antibiotic resistance rate between groups. It would be better to provide the data 
of antibiotic resistanc e in each group because antibiotic resistance is the most important 
factor that influences efficacy of regimen.  
 
 
 
 
 
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 require d 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  
additiona l statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following quest ions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, 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 a ny 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 com peting 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.  
 
none 
 
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 f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website a long with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available und er 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 r eport 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