Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02923-z (2023)

Title: The evaluation of MMP-2/TIMP-1 ratio in peptic ulcer and its association with refractory
helicobacter pylori infection Running head: MMP-2/TIMP-1 in PUD and H. pylori infection
Version: 1 Date: 24 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Overall, it's a nice, neat and well-designed work. The groups are
well defined. Statistical analysis and testing seems to have been used in place. But, the authors
focused only on MMP-2 and TIMP-1. However, there are many other markers that can be looked
at, such as MMP-3, MMP-7, MMP-8, MMP-9, MMP-13. Others could be looked at. It seems as
if they have limited themselves. Also, the number of resources seems a bit limited. Therefore,
the number of resources can be increased.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors focused only on MMP-2 and TIMP-1. However, there are many other markers that
can be looked at, such as MMP-3, MMP-7, MMP-8, MMP-9, MMP-13. Others could be looked
at. It seems as if they have limited themselves. Also, the number of resources seems a bit limited.
Therefore, the number of resources can be increased.
In the statistical analysis of the endoscopic findings in Table 1, the p value should be 0.6576
according to the chi-square test. However, the p value was recorded as 0.005 in Table 1.
Therefore, the statistical analysis needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, it is necessary to
rearrange the results and discussion sections according to the new statistical results.
It is very important to specify separately which test is used in calculating which p values in
Table 2. Which of the tests under the title of statistical analysis is used? The name of the tests
used should be written as a note under Table 2. I could not control the statistical analysis as it
was not specified which test was used to calculate which p value. For this reason, it is useful to
review the statistical analysis in Table 2.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Number of references seems somewhat limited. Therefore, the number of resources can
be increased; thus, expanding the scope of the discussion. Statistical analysis needs to be
reconsidered. Accordingly, it is necessary to rearrange the results and discussion sections
according to the new statistical results.