All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
After receiving the comments done by two experts on the field, they considered that all the comments have been successfully addressed by the authors and now the manuscript is suitable for publication. Reviewer 2 is asking for corrections in the references but this can be done in the proofs stage. I kindly request that authors carefully check that the references and any other typo is corrected before submitting their proofs.
Congratulations!
Best regards,
Bernardo
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
This is an interesting paper on a relevant problem. It presents a meta-analysis of the evaluation of the global prevalence of CLA resistance in H. pylori. The paper includes a wide range of references and content, that may be very useful for students and healthcare professionals. The authors have made all necessary changes and implemented all previous recommendations. In addition, addressed all my concerns. However, there are very few inadvertent typed mistakes that have been referred to directly in the attached document.
The authors have made all necessary changes and implemented all previous recommendations. In addition, addressed all my concerns.
No comments
The authors have made all necessary changes and implemented all previous recommendations. In addition, addressed all my concerns.
It is OK
This is a review, so experiments were not done.
OK
Please correct several mistakes in the references, eg.
put scientific names in italics and capitalize genus.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your work to PeerJ. The manuscript contains many important findings and is well-written. Both experts have addressed your work and recommended minor corrections. Reviewers also indicated issues that need attention. Please go point by point in the revision of your manuscript and provide a rebuttal letter at the earliest of your convenience.
Once again, thank you for providing this manuscript and I also thank the two experts who assessed your work.
With warm regards and all the best for 2023.
Bernardo
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
This is systematic search and intriguing study connected to examine the prevalence of the CLA resistance in H. pylori to give some recommendations for picking the first-line antibiotics. It is well written and organized, figures are relevant, high quality, clear and comprehensible. Tables are appropriate. However, there are some grammatical errors throughout the manuscript that need editing.
The experimental design is adequate. However, researchers have focused on a number of countries more than others in collecting information, so this issue was not discussed at the level of other countries especially developing ones where there are no monitoring and stewardship programs on the utilization of antibiotics.
The data is reliable and statistically sound. The conclusions are quite apparent, and the research provides the writers with sample data from which to draw.
• This study reviewed and meta-analyzed the prevalence of CLA resistance in H. pylori throughout the world to help in the selection of appropriate antibiotics. This work is well-written and encouraging since it provides evidence that might serve as a new tool for ensuring that public health emergencies are prioritized in research and development.
Title: the title properly explains the purpose and objective of the article.
Abstract:
• The abstract offers an accurate summary of the paper, and the language used in the abstract is easy to read and understand.
• Line 35: The full name is written in full when it is mentioned for the first time and is followed by an abbreviation in brackets Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori)
• Keywords: Line 53: Please arrange keywords alphabetically
Introduction:
• Introduction: The authors provide sufficient context on the subject.
• Line 67: This list categorizes bacteria into critical, high, and medium-priority groups, based on examining a number of criteria, I wish the authors would imply which categorize this bacterium is and what the criteria used to categorize those pathogens?
• Line 81- 83: Please paraphrase the aims of the study to avoid repetition.
Methods:
• Line 94: The complete name of the abbreviation should be added just before its first mention only, clarithromycin resistant H. pylori p change as: CLA-resistant H. pylori
Results: The findings are presented clearly, and the results are reliable.
• Line 131-133: Despite the authors covering the subject very well, most of the evaluating and discussing articles were from Asia (82 from Iran, China, and Japan) so this issue was not discussed at the level of other countries especially developing ones where there are no monitoring and stewardship programs on the utilization of antibiotics.
• Lines 144, 147, 148,…: Please remove the extra brackets, there are many of them, in addition to following the direction of the brackets.
• The tables and figures are clear and comprehensible.
Discussion:
• Line 161: Which priority, high or moderate? Please explain why it is considered on this list?
• Line 168: among different countries of the world (why this statement wrote as italic?).
• Line 128, 170: There is a difference in the number of eligible studies included in this article, sometimes the authors mentioned 247, and other times they mentioned 248, please clarify that???
• Line 179, 213: H. pylori should be italic.
Conclusions are clear, the study offers sample data for the authors to draw.
Grammar: Need some revisions along the manuscript.
The manuscript is well written, clear and easy to read, the references, figures and tables have good quality and are adequate.
no experiments were performed, but the design of the study is OK.
The findings are interesting and I think valid, nevertheless, I have some concerns listed in the next section.
1) as the authors explain there are 2 levels of resistance against clarithromycin in H. pilory, low and high , why not intermediate resistance is considered?
2) is it possible that in their analysis they provide an idea of the percentaje of isolates with low and high resistance levels.
3) is it relevant to the therapy if they have low or high resistance?
4) is it possible to estimate what is the percentaje of the "8736 isolates " included in the study that are clonal?
there are some minor mistakes that shoudl be corrected:
L 136 "Regression" do not capitalize "R" use "r".
L 144 fix "69( .H"
always use a space between the ")" and text.
L 188 "Asia countries", better "asian".
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.