Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02816-1 (2023)

Title: Diagnostic performance of the normal range of gastrin calculated using strict criteria
based on a combination of serum markers and pathological evaluation for detecting gastritis: a
retrospective study
Version: 3 Date: 14 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a study investigating normal range of serum gastrin based on the strict criteria of
non-gastritis normal subjects. The study design, methods, results, and interpretation are good.
Revised manuscript has much improved with the support of an English editing service. But
unfortunately, there are still some points to be revised as in the followings. You should check
the manuscript before completing submission with printed materials from the downloaded files
which you uploaded. I cannot believe your co-authors check and accept the manuscript before
submission.
Points for re-revision
1. Before the main manuscript (before Background), reset the page.
2. Each table should be attached in the separate page. Some tables are not shown in comfortable
forms in printed version. Fit the tables for the readers.
3. It is so confusing because you made additional files and supplementary tables. Additional
files are just supplementary tables. Combine all tables in a series.
4. Line 89: Delete ‘levels’. I just want to say my opinion about the difference between ‘level’ and
‘concentration’. ‘level’ is a kind of word with 1-dimension unit if unit is needed (e.g. m, mm,
mmHg), whereas ‘concentration’ is a term with a unit of 1-dimension/3-dimension (e. g. g/L. mg/
dL, U/dL). Most blood tests are measured as ‘concentration’. That is why I felt uncomfortable
when you frequently used ‘level’ in the previous manuscript. On the other hand, you do not have
to add ‘concentration’ in every part. Just ‘gastrin’ is acceptable in some situations. In addition,
the font of ‘concentration’ is different in some parts. Check the manuscript in printed version.
5. Line 97-99: This sentence is not good. My recommendation (just an example): However, in
these studies, 200pg/mL is not considered the adequate cut-off value for pathologically normal
stomach.
6. Line 114: ‘and’ should be ‘or’.
7. Line 162-165: This sentence is difficult to understand. Simple description may be good.
8. Line 168-170: This sentence is redundant. Explanation of group A has already been explained
previously.
9. Line 218-219: ‘(based on … gastrin values)’ is redundant and should be deleted.
10. Line 256: Fig. 2b may be fig. 2a?
11. Line 273: ‘specificity’ is duplicated.
12. Line 276-280: Are these sentences necessary?
13. Line 281-283: redundant. ‘’in this strictly…group’ should be shortened to ‘in this study ‘.
Delete ‘a different group, i.e.,’
14. Line 284-285: How useful is it? The sensitivity is low. What situation is measuring gastrin
useful. Author should also discuss about the low sensitivity.
15. Line 286-295: The contents of the sentences are duplicated with the previous paragraph.
You should consider deleting to shorten the manuscript.
16. GastroPanel is introduced in Introduction, but not discussed in Discussion.
17. Line 312: a period is missing.
18. Fig. 1: ‘level’ should be changed to ‘concentration’. ‘standard range±2SD’ may be ‘range
within 2SD’.
19. Fig. 2a: The horizontal line in the graph looks to show 200 pg/mL. It should be 126 pg/mL.
20. Fig. 2b: The optimal cut-off value should be described.