Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02614-1 (2022)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Application of a WeChat-based mini-app as a patient reminder in
Helicobacter pylori eradication: A prospective multi-center randomized
controlled study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
28 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading
your report as an attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated
versions of manuscripts, graphs, supporting materials or other aspects of your
report which cannot be included in a text format.
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.
In this multicenter RCT study. The authors investigated whether Wechat
delivered instructions improved the eradication rate of H. pylori. The authors
found that mini-app-based notification improved patient compliance. However,
H. pylori eradication rate was not improved. There were several issues should be
addressed.
1. Languages and writing should be improved. For instance, the authors used the
phrase of "fit the criteria". However, the expression of "meet the inclusion
criteria" may be better. Besides, the authors stated "Patients were encouraged to
put down their concerns and questions in the mini-app". "put down" should be
replaced with "raise " or "express". "statical analysis" was a wrong spelling.
2. In the 8th item of exclusion criteria of "illiterate, not owning a smartphone, or
incapable of using mini-app due to other reasons." it seemed that some illiterate
and old people were excluded. App aided Education may be achieved with help
of close relatives who were capable of using app. Exclusion of the population
would limit the generalization of this finding.
3. The description of app delivered education was not enough in this Method
Section. The details, including the creation of app, the methods of medications,
dealing with possible adverse events, should be shown in separate supplementary
material.
4. The section of Outcome assessment should be separated from the section of
statistical analysis. what is primary outcome? This information should be
described in the section of "outcomes"
5. The description of data analysis was inadequate. What kinds of patients were
included in ITT or PP analysis? there were different statistical methods between
the data with normally distribution and those abnormally distributed data. The
authors should described the methods in detail.
6. In the ITT analysis, 103 patients were assigned to the DMN group and 123
patients were assigned to the control group. Could the authors explained why the
randomization ratio of 1:1 was not achieved?
7. How to calculate sample size before patients' recruitment?
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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 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 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 that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes