Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0610-0 (2017)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Systematic review with network meta -analysis: dual therapy for high -risk bleeding peptic 
ulcers  
 
Version: 0 Date: 24 Dec 2016 
 
Reviewer:  Marco  Allaix  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
It is an interesting review.  
 
I have some comments:  
 
1. I would add "peptic" to the title  
 
2. the introduction i s too long  
 
3. please better define what "high risk" means  
 
4. a clear definition of mechanical therapy is required  
 
5. the authors state that some treatment modalities are significantly better than others. However, 
all p values provided in the tables are >0. 05. 
 
6. I feel that a review by a statistician is recommended to get a correct interpretation of the 
results obtained.  
 
7. the discussion is unclear, I suggest to revise it  
 
8. the role of clips should be discussed  
 
 
Minor:  
 
1.English language needs revision b y a native English speaker  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please speci fy 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.  
 
No 
 
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 statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what asp ects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 
manus cript, 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.  
 
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 att achments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecomm ons.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