Quality of care of peptic ulcer disease worldwide: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 1990-2019.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects four million people worldwide annually and has an estimated lifetime prevalence of 5-10% in the general population. Worldwide, there are significant heterogeneities in coping approaches of healthcare systems with PUD in prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Quantifying and benchmarking health systems' performance is crucial yet challenging to provide a clearer picture of the potential global inequities in the quality of care.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the health-system quality-of-care and inequities for PUD among age groups and sexes worldwide.
METHODS: Data were derived from the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990-2019. Principal-Component-Analysis was used to combine age-standardized mortality-to-incidence-ratio, disability-adjusted-life-years-to-prevalence-ratio, prevalence-to-incidence-ratio, and years-of-life-lost-to-years-lived-with-disability-into a single proxy named Quality-of-Care-Index (QCI). QCI was used to compare the quality of care among countries. QCI's validity was investigated via correlation with the cause-specific Healthcare-Access-and-Quality-index, which was acceptable. Inequities were presented among age groups and sexes. Gender Disparity Ratio was obtained by dividing the score of women by that of men.
RESULTS: Global QCI was 72.6 in 1990, which increased by 14.6% to 83.2 in 2019. High-income-Asia-pacific had the highest QCI, while Central Latin America had the lowest. QCI of high-SDI countries was 82.9 in 1990, which increased to 92.9 in 2019. The QCI of low-SDI countries was 65.0 in 1990, which increased to 76.9 in 2019. There was heterogeneity among the QCI-level of countries with the same SDI level. QCI typically decreased as people aged; however, this gap was more significant among low-SDI countries. The global Gender Disparity Ratio was close to one and ranged from 0.97 to 1.03 in 100 of 204 countries.
CONCLUSION: QCI of PUD improved dramatically during 1990-2019 worldwide. There are still significant heterogeneities among countries on different and similar SDI levels.

Introduction

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects four million people worldwide annually [1] and has an estimated lifetime prevalence of 5−10% in the general population [2]. Although the global prevalence of PUD has dramatically decreased in the past decades [3], the incidence of its complications has remained constant [4].

Worldwide, there are significant heterogeneities in coping approaches of healthcare systems with PUD in terms of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up [5]. Prevention is positively correlated with the development of infrastructures and the effectiveness of healthcare systems [6]. The choice of diagnostic test and treatment approaches mainly relies on accessibility and cost [7]. Therefore, quantifying and benchmarking health systems’ performance is crucial yet challenging to provide a clearer picture of the potential global inequities in the quality of care [8].

In this sense, the objective of this study was to compare the quality of medical care provided for PUD using the Quality of Care Index (QCI) among age groups and both sexes in various nations and regions based on the data of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019. To obtain QCI, four indices of PUD, including age-standardized mortality to incidence ratio, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) to prevalence ratio, prevalence to incidence ratio, and years of life lost (YLLs) to years lived with disability (YLDs) ratio, were combined into a single index using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [9-17].

Materials and methods

The study data were initially derived from the GBD study, conducted by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which abides by relevant guidelines and regulations. We carried out no experiments on any human or animal subjects. Thus, consent to participate does not apply to the present study. This study was approved by the institutional review board of Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR.TUMS.EMRI.REC.1400.016).

Data source

The study data were derived from GBD 2019, conducted by IHME. GBD 2019 included 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019 and a systematic analysis of 286 causes of death, 369 diseases and injuries, and 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories [18, 19]. GBD classified countries and territories into 21 regions based on epidemiological homogeneity and geographical contiguity [20]. The regions were also grouped into seven super-regions based on the cause of death patterns [21]. The seven super-regions are High income; Latin America & Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa & Middle East; Southeast Asia, East Asia & Oceania; South Asia; Central Europe, Eastern Europe & Central Asia.

The study protocol and codes used in this study are available from (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bprjmm4n) [22]. The data used in this work are available from Global Burden of Disease Results Tool (http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool) [23], made public by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The data of PUD were extracted from GBD 2019: GBD code: B.4.2.1, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision, World Health Organization version 10 (ICD-10) code: K-25 to K28.9 [24]. Data sources used to provide estimates in GBD 2019 are presented in S1 Table. In terms of the development status, countries were categorized using the GBD Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) [25].

Statistical analysis

Age standardization

To account for the change in population structure, age-standardized incidence, mortality, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs rates were computed by direct standardization to the global age structure and expressed as the number per 100,000 population [18]. Nevertheless, to investigate the inequities among age groups, all-ages measures were used to calculate QCI.

Quality of care index

To determine QCI for PUD, the following indices were defined as follows:

The mortality to incidence ratio of PUD indicates that with a stable PUD incidence in regions, higher mortality values could represent worse care provided to these patients.

DALY to prevalence ratio of PUD indicates that with a similar prevalence of PUD in regions, higher DALY could represent worse care quality.

The prevalence to incidence ratio of PUD indicates that in regions with similar PUD incidence, higher prevalence could represent better PUD management to avert mortality.

YLLs to YLDs ratio of PUD could reflect the quality of healthcare in a region, as poor health quality provided for PUD in a region would result in higher YLLs and fewer YLDs. In other words, patients would live less than the life expectancy of the region.

Principal components analysis

PCA would allow us to reduce the number of variables in a large set of correlated variables to a smaller number of variables that collectively explain most of the variance in the original set [26]. The first component of PCA was made up of a linear combination of the four abovementioned ratios, including mortality to incidence, DALYs to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and YLLs to YLDs, containing the most significant amount of information about these variables and is referred to as QCI in this study. QCI ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the best quality of care [9–11, 17, 22]. PCA would allow us to reduce the number of variables in a large set of correlated variables to a smaller number of variables that collectively explain most of the variance in the original set The interpretation of all the above measures could be used as a proxy for the quality of care provided for the disease. In this study, PCA was performed to convert the four indices into a single index. PCA is an approach to statistical analysis in which multiple datasets are combined as orthogonal components [26]. The first component of PCA was, made up of a linear combination of the four abovementioned ratios, including mortality to incidence, DALYs to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and YLLs to YLDs, all variables, containings the greatest most significant amount of information about these variables and is referred to as QCI in this study. QCI ranged from 0 -to 100, with 100 indicating the best quality of care [9–11, 17, 22].

PCA was performed using R software version 3.5.2. For enhanced interpretation and comparison of countries, QCI was categorized as five levels in 2019 based on quintiles, where Level 1 (the first quintile) indicated the highest index and Level 5 (the fifth quintile) the lowest: Level 5 included QCI ≤69.14, Level 4 QCI>69.14 to 75.23, Level 3 QCI>75.23 to 81.33, Level 2 QCI>81.33 to 86.35, and Level 1 QCI>86.35.

Data validation

Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) was another index for measuring personal healthcare access and quality across countries, developed by GBD in 2016 [27]. HAQ has been calculated for 32 causes, including PUD, that were considered amenable to health care comprise, representing a range of health service areas: vaccine-preventable diseases; infectious diseases and maternal and child health; non-communicable diseases, including cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other non-communicable diseases such as diabetes; and gastrointestinal conditions from which surgery can avert death. Thus, the cause-specific HAQ reported for PUD could be used to validate QCI externally. The correlation between the QCI and all-causes/cause-specific HAQ index [28, 29] was evaluated by applying a mixed-effect model of QCI as a dependent variable and inpatient and outpatient health care utilization, mortality of PUD, and its mortality attribute to smoking, which is its known risk factor reported by GBD [24], as independent variables while considering countries as random effects. The correlation between the HAQ Index and the predicted values was 0.72, indicating an acceptable association between the two indices [30] and validating QCI as an applicable measure of the quality of care among patients with PUD (S2 Table). Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) was another index for measuring personal health-care access and quality across countries, developed by GBD in 2016 [27]. HAQ has been calculated for 32 causes, including PUD, that were considered amenable to health care comprise, representing a range of health service areas: vaccine-preventable diseases; infectious diseases and maternal and child health; non-communicable diseases, including cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other non-communicable diseases such as diabetes; and gastrointestinal conditions from which surgery can easily avert death. Thus, the cause-specific HAQ reported for PUD could be used to externally validate QCIvalidate QCI externally. The correlation between the QCI and all-causes/cause-specific HAQ index [28, 29] was evaluated by applying a mixed-effect model of QCI as a dependent variable and inpatient and outpatient health care utilization, mortality of PUD, and its mortality attribute to smoking, which is its known risk factor reported by GBD [24], as independent variables while considering countries as random effects. The correlation between the HAQ Index and the predicted values was 0.72, indicating an acceptable association of between the two indices [30] and validating QCI as an applicable measure of the quality of care among patients with PUD (S2 Table).

Inequity pattern

Geographical inequity. The age-standardized QCI among various locations were presented as a geographical hierarchy, including 204 countries and territories grouped into 21 regions and seven GBD super-regions [18].

Age inequity. Age inequity presented the status of quality of care across different age groups based on different SDI regions. All-ages data were used for determining the QCI among age groups.

Gender inequity. The age-standardized QCIs among both women and men were calculated separately and compared to determine the status of gender equity. Gender Disparity Ratio (GDR) was obtained by dividing the age-standardized QCI of women by that of men. The numbers closer to one indicate a better situation.

The statistical analyses were carried out in October 2020 using R statistical packages v3.4.3 (http://www.r-project.org, RRID: SCR_001905). Data visualizations were performed using Python programming language (Python Language Reference, version 3.6. Available at www.python.org) via Altair version 4.1, an open-source Python library. The maps were generated using free open-source map data of Natural Earth public domain (naturalearthdata.com) via Python programming language. The statistical codes are available elsewhere [22].

Results

Prevalence, incidence, and mortality

Since 1990, the age-standardized prevalence of PUD has decreased 31% worldwide, from 143.4 per 100,000 to 99.4 in 2019. However, there was heterogeneity in the prevalence changes by geographical distribution. Among 21 GBD regions in 1990–2019, the age-standardized prevalence rate of PUD decreased by almost 70% in Andean Latin America, 58% in Latin America and Caribbean, and 37% in South Asia. PUD incidence has continuously decreased by 31% worldwide, from 63.8 in 1990 per 100,000 to 44.3 in 2019. The age-standardized incidence rate has decreased by almost 68% in Andean Latin America, 56% in Latin America and Caribbean, and 45% in Eastern Europe. The age-standardized mortality rate of PUD has 59% decreased, from 7.4 in 1990 to 3.0 in 2019. The highest age-standardized mortality of PUD was witnessed in low and low-middle SDI countries (S3 and S4 Tables).

Quality of care index

GBD regions

Distinct geographic patterns emerged for QCI levels from 1990 to 2019. The global age-standardized QCI was 72.6 (Level 4) in 1990, which has increased by 14.6% to 83.2 (Level 2) in 2019. Among GBD regions, high-income Asia Pacific had the highest age-standardized QCI in 2019. Central Latin America had the lowest QCI in 1990, which increased by 154.9% from 20.1 (Level 5) to 51.2 (Level 5) in 2019. By 2019, nearly all countries and territories saw increases in their QCI, except for Armenia, Zimbabwe, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Lesotho, Nepal, Ukraine, Pakistan, Lithuania, Tajikistan, and Paraguay. The top five countries with the highest QCI in 2019 included Singapore (98.5), Turkey (97.3), Japan (96.9), the Republic of Korea (96.9), and the United States of America (95.1). Honduras (13.2), Guatemala (27.0), Cambodia (40.2), El Salvador (41.1), and Nicaragua (43.5) had the lowest index. The gap between the highest and lowest QCI was narrower in 2019 (ΔQCI = 85.3) than in 1990 (ΔQCI = 89.3). QCI of countries in categories in 1990 and 2019 are presented in Fig 1 and S5 Table.

Fig 1

Quality of care index for peptic ulcer disease by country in 1990 and 2019.

QCI levels

Level 1 included countries from all GBD super-regions: Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and central Asia; High income; Latin America and Caribbean; North Africa and the Middle East; South Asia; Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania; and Sub-Saharan Africa. High income; Latin America and Caribbean; Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania; and Sub-Saharan Africa had varied age-standardized QCI levels, spanning from Level 5 to Level 1. Among GBD super-regions, South Asia had the most improvement in QCI score (Fig 1 and S5 Table).

SDI levels

Age-standardized QCI of high SDI countries was 82.9 (Level 2) in 1990, which increased by 12.0% to 92.9 (Level 1) in 2019. The QCI of low SDI countries was 65.0 (Level 5) in 1990, which increased by 76.9 (Level 2) in 2019. There was heterogeneity among the QCI level of countries with the same SDI level: i.e., the United Kingdom (76.8) and Singapore (98.5). The QCI level of countries with high or high-middle SDI varied from Level 5 to Level 1. No countries with middle, low-middle, or low SDI had a Level 1 QCI score, except for Nepal (Fig 2 and S5 Table).

Fig 2

Quality of care index for peptic ulcer disease by SDI score of countries in 2019.

Age pattern for quality of care index

QCI typically decreases as people age, and inequity exists between age groups. However, there was a considerable gap between High SDI countries and Low SDI countries. In 2019, the QCI in high SDI countries was >90 for all ages. QCI remained >75 for ages <49 in Low-SDI countries and then decreased to its dew point at less than 75 for ages 50–54 (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Age pattern for quality of care index based on SDI in 1990 and 2019.

Gender disparity ratio

GDR was calculated by dividing the age-standardized QCI of women by that of men: GDR closer to one indicated better equality. In 2019, the overall average of age-standardized GDR was 1.01 globally, which indicated that QCI was similar among women and men. Of 204 countries, the GDR of 100 countries ranged from 0.97 to 1.03, which was considered equality among both genders. Fifteen countries had GDR equal to one. Guinea-Bissau with GDR equal to 1.3 had the worst quality of care for men comparing with women in 2019. On the other hand, Honduras, Kiribati, and Pakistan, with GDR equal to 0.15, 0.71, and 0.78, had the highest gender disparity in favor of men in 2019 (S6 Table).

The gap between QCI of women and men has become narrower from 1990 to 2019. As opposed to High SDI countries, there was a significant gap between the GDR of older age groups and younger age groups in Low-SDI countries in 2019. In younger age groups, women had higher QCI than men, which was then conversed for middle age groups in favor of men, and then again in favor of women among older adults (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Gender disparity ratio for quality of care index of peptic ulcer disease among age groups and SDI levels in 1990 and 2019.

Discussion

The global age-standardized QCI improved from 72.6 in 1990 to 83.2 in 2019, and nearly all countries and territories increased their index during this time. Singapore, Turkey, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States of America had the highest QCI in 2019. Although higher SDI countries generally had higher QCI, there was significant heterogeneity for countries at similar SDI. Notwithstanding, the gap between the highest and lowest QCI was not bridged in the last three decades.

High-income Asia pacific had the highest QCI, both in 1990 and 2019. Interestingly, the prevalence of gastric cancer was highest in the high-income Asia Pacific [31]. In this region, Singapore, Japan, and the Republic of Korea had the highest QCI in 1990 and 2019. As a gastric cancer prevalent country, Japan implemented various screening programs for PUD and gastric cancer [32], which have been most successful in decreasing its prevalence [31]. Over the past years, Japan has been following a screen and treat approach, especially for adolescents, since Helicobacter pylori are mainly acquired during childhood [33]. In contrast to the Republic of Korea, QCI in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea decreased in the last three decades, highlighting the wide gap in their economic development [34].

Although younger age groups had significantly higher QCI both in high and low SDI countries, the inequities among age groups decreased during 1990–2019. PUD in the elderly needs sustained attention since its presentation is insidious compared to younger patients; thus, diagnosis is delayed [35]. Older age is also associated with a higher incidence of Helicobacter pylori-associated and non-Helicobacter pylori-associated PUD due to the dramatic increase in the prescription of antithrombotic agents and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [36]. The mortality of bleeding peptic ulcers remains higher among patients over 60 years of age, especially those over 80, despite previous advances in pharmacological and endoscopic treatment [37]. PUD diagnosis and treatment approaches could be incredibly costly for low SDI countries, which could become a predisposing factor for favoring resource allocation for younger age groups.

The global GDR was close to one, indicating that QCI was similar among women and men. In addition, the GDR of nearly half of the countries ranged from 0.97 to 1.03. Although GDR could bring some insights towards seeing the big picture, it could also become misleading. In case the QCI of both women and men is low, the ratio would seem satisfactory. Higher QCI among women could be due to increased PUD complications among men [38]. Nevertheless, the novel emerging evidence on the predisposing factors of complicated or non-complicated PUD would suggest that the witnessed inequities among age groups across various countries could be due to otherwise neglected factors such as the number of household members [39]. Thus, further research is required to enhance the current understanding of the existing inequities to help bridge the gaps among various groups, especially in low and low-middle income countries.

From 1990 to 2019, there has been a 31% reduction in the global age-standardized prevalence rate of PUD, 31% in age-standardized incidence rate, and 59% in age-standardized mortality rate. Other studies also showed a sharp decreasing trend in the prevalence, incidence, and mortality associated with PUD over the past 2–3 decades [2, 4]. The decline in the incidence and prevalence of PUD coincides with the decline in the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori. However, preventing factors like using medications that decrease gastric acid secretion and predisposing factors like smoking and the availability of non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs need to be taken into account [40].

This study also highlights the considerable existing heterogeneity across the globe regarding the changes in prevalence, incidence, and mortality of PUD. While the age-standardized mortality rate due to PUD has decreased by 69% in high-SDI countries, low and low-middle SDI countries remain to have the highest age-standardized PUD mortality rate despite previous endeavors. The reasons for the witnessed heterogeneity could be larger family size, low socioeconomic status, overcrowding, poor sanitation, having an infected sibling, growth retardation, and nutritional deficiencies, particularly iron-deficiency anemia in low SDI countries [41, 42]. The witnessed gaps and inequities call for concerted efforts to lessen the burden of PUD in areas with limited resources. Given the level of technology, expenses, and the expertise required for complications management of PUD, its early detection and prevention seem feasible and cost-effective [43]. However, further research is required to determine the most suitable strategies for early detection, treatment, and follow-up based on available resources.

Strengths and limitations

QCI combined mortality to incidence ratio [44], DALYs to prevalence ratio [45], prevalence to incidence ratio [46], and YLLs to YLDs ratio [47] into a single index, aiming to demonstrate the quality of care among countries [9–11, 28, 47–49]. Although QCI does not reflect all the aspects of the quality of services among healthcare systems, it could be used as a proxy for comparing various countries. The review of the existing literature also confirmed that the current situation of PUD on a global scale and its time trends during 1990–2019 mainly were consistent with the picture, as shown via QCI [3, 4, 27, 50]. In addition, it showed an acceptable correlation with the HAQ Index for PUD. The advantage of QCI is that, unlike HAQ Index, it could be used to present inequities among both sexes, age groups, and in all the seven GBD super-regions and 21 regions. QCI combined mortality to incidence ratio [44], DALYs to prevalence ratio [45], prevalence to incidence ratio [46], and YLLs to YLDs ratio [47], into a single index, aiming to demonstrate the quality of care among countries [9–11, 28, 47–49]. Although QCI does not reflect all the aspects of the quality of services among healthcare systems, it could be used as a proxy for comparing various countries. The review of the existing literature also confirmed that the current situation of PUD on a global scale and its time trends during 1990–2019 was mainly were mostly consistent with the picture, as shown via QCI [3, 4, 27, 50]. In addition, it showed an acceptable correlation with the HAQ Index for PUD. The advantage of QCI is that, unlike HAQ Index, it could be used to present inequities among both sexes, age groups, and in all the seven GBD super-regions and 21 regions.

Moreover, we used the estimates of GBD 2019, while the latest published HAQ Index used the data of GBD 2016 [28]. However, QCI does not currently capture subnational inequalities, and future efforts with a better geospatial resolution on sub-national levels need to be prioritized. Despite using as many data sources as possible, the GBD study includes estimations based on the predictive covariates in locations with scarce data sources. Since the data of this study were derived from the GBD study, the limitations experienced in GBD estimations also apply to this study [51]. Among risk factors of PUD, smoking was the only risk factor with sufficient data to be modeled in the GBD study 2019. In this study, PCA was used to generate QCI, a mathematical method [52]. GBD utilizes statistical methods to estimate the burden measures, i.e. DALYs, YLLs, YLDs, death, incidences, and prevalence. Nevertheless, PCA did not allow us to present any uncertainty values; thus, the study does not report confidence or uncertainty intervals. Despite its limitations, the current study could show the big picture of the current inequities regarding PUD management based on geographical distribution, sex, and age groups to empower policymakers in making well-informed decisions. Moreover, we used the estimates of GBD 2019, while the latest published HAQ Index used the data of GBD 2016 [28]. However, QCI does not currently capture subnational inequalities, and future efforts with a better geospatial resolution on sub-national levels need to be prioritized. Despite using as many data sources as possible, the GBD study includes estimations based on the predictive covariates in locations with scarce data sources. Since the data of this study were derived from the GBD study, the limitations experienced in GBD estimations also apply to this study [51]. Among risk factors of PUD, smoking was the only risk factor with sufficient data to be modeled in the GBD study 2019. Unfortunately In this study, PCA was used to generate QCI, a mathematical method [52]. GBD utilizes statistical methods to estimate the burden measures, i.e. DALYs, YLLs, YLDs, death, incidences, and prevalence. Nevertheless, PCA did not allow us to present any uncertainty values; thus, the study does not report confidence or uncertainty intervals limited statistical and computational resources hindered calculating the confidence interval for all estimated indices and significant values in this study. Despite its limitations, the current study could be used for showing show the big picture of the current inequities regarding PUD management based on geographical distribution, sex, and age groups to empower policymakers towards in making well-informed decisions.

Conclusions

QCI of PUD improved dramatically during 1990–2019 worldwide. There are still significant heterogeneities among countries on different and similar SDI levels. Given the inequities among various age groups and both sexes, there is still room for improvement for QCI and bridging the inequity gaps. The prosperous countries in this regard need to be introduced as role models, and their plans be implemented towards a sustained reduction of age-standardized death rates from the causes amenable to personal health care.

Data sources of GBD study 2019 for peptic ulcer disease.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Mixed-effect regression analysis to assess the validation of QCI for PUD.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Prevalence, incidence, and mortality of peptic ulcer disease among countries in 1990 and 2019.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Changes in prevalence, incidence, and mortality of peptic ulcer disease among countries from 1990 to 2019.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Age-standardized quality of care index and its levels of countries based on GBD super regions, regions, and SDI in 1990 and 2019.

* Locations were sorted by countries’ QCI in 2019.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Gender disparity ratio of countries in 1990 and 2019.

* Locations were sorted by countries’ GDR in 2019.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

11 May 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dinh-Toi Chu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure (1)  in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure (1) to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewer #1: The paper tackles a public health issue using measures such as the socio demographical index, in addition to using a proxy for quality of care, as well as the gender disparity ratio to assess the levels of inequities and quality of care for peptic ulcer disease worldwide among different demographical aspects.

The paper is simple and its writing style is comprehensible for the non specialized of readers. It uses easy to understand figures and graphs. The conclusion is supported by valid data.

This kind of analysis is useful in aiding policy makers in deciding on interventions to combat peptic ulcer disease at the root cause, because the study takes into consideration sociodemographic determinants of health, which in turn affect health outcomes and quality of care.

Reviewer #2: 1. All acronyms should be defined at the first mention of each of the acronyms in the manuscript.

2. What is NSAIDs?

3. What are the criteria for the classifications of GBD super regions?

4. Please remove the list of abbreviations at the end of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: This study has been conducted using the data derived from the Global Burden of Disease study 19990 – 2019. The objective of this study was to compare the health-system quality-of-care and inequities for Peptic Ulcer Disease (PUD) among age groups and sexes worldwide. The authors have concluded that the Quality of Care Index of PUD improved dramatically during 1990-2019 worldwide. There are still significant heterogeneities among countries both on different and on similar SDI-levels.

The rationale for the study is clear and valid. The authors have used a technically suitable protocol and a feasible methodology to effectively achieve the study's aims.

However, I have the following concerns about their methodology.

1.) QCI is a relatively new index attempting to estimate the health care quality at the population level. The index was developed using a linear combination of mortality to incidence, DALY to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and YLL to YLD ratios estimated using an acceptable statistical method. However, the authors should elaborate on interpreting the QCI relevant to the subject matter under consideration. To me, the QCI is too composite.

2.) The rationale of selecting or dividing the QCI into different levels (Level 1 to 5) is not clearly explained in terms of their relative importance. For example, the difference between levels 1 and 5 when considering the service delivery outcomes at the operational level is challenging to comprehend. How a country should move from level 1 to 5 is not clear.

3.) The major drawback was that the estimates lacked the confidence intervals to compare the different levels defined. The study's authors have highlighted this drawback, but it is better to get expert statistical advice to overcome this fundamental limitation.

4) Few spelling mistakes were noted.

**********

28 May 2022

Dear Editor in Chief

Please find enclosed the revised version of our manuscript titled "Quality of care of peptic ulcer disease worldwide: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 1990-2019", which we would like to submit for publication in PLOS ONE.

Please find enclosed our reply to the editors and reviewer's comments. We have appreciated the encouraging, fair and constructive comments of the editors and reviewers. We revised the manuscript according to the suggestions and enclosed a highlighted version of the revised manuscript.

We feel that the changes made according to the comments have improved the quality of the manuscript, and we would be happy if it now meets the criteria for publication in the journal.

Best regards;

Farshad Farzadfar

(On behalf of myself and my co-authors)

Editor comments

Editor

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Authors

Amended.

Editor

We note that Figure (1) in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure (1) to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Authors

Kindly be informed that the maps were generated using free, open-source map data of the Natural Earth public domain (naturalearthdata.com) via Python programming language. This was also included in the methods section of the manuscript. It now reads:

The maps were generated using free open-source map data of Natural Earth public domain (naturalearthdata.com) via Python programming language.

Editor

We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Authors

Thank you for your meticulous comment. Regarding the data availability, we have previously published the study protocol to enable other researchers to reproduce this work. Moreover, the data used in this study are available from the Global Burden of Disease Results Tool, made public by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The authors confirm they had no special access or privileges to the data that other researchers would not have. We revised the data source sub-heading in the methods section, which now reads:

The study data were derived from GBD 2019, conducted by IHME. GBD 2019 included 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019 and a systematic analysis of 286 causes of death, 369 diseases and injuries, and 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories [1,2]. GBD classified countries and territories into 21 regions based on epidemiological homogeneity and geographical contiguity [3]. The regions were also grouped into seven super-regions based on the cause of death patterns [4]. The seven super-regions are High income; Latin America & Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa & Middle East; Southeast Asia, East Asia & Oceania; South Asia; Central Europe, Eastern Europe & Central Asia.

The study protocol and codes used in this study are available from (https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bprjmm4n) [5]. The data used in this work are available from Global Burden of Disease Results Tool (http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool) [6], made public by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The data of PUD were extracted from GBD 2019: GBD code: B.4.2.1, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision, World Health Organization version 10 (ICD-10) code: K-25 to K28.9 [7]. Data sources used to provide estimates in GBD 2019 are presented in Supplementary Table 1. In terms of the development status, countries were categorized using the GBD Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) [8].

Reviewer 1

Reviewer

Reviewer #1: The paper tackles a public health issue using measures such as the socio demographical index, in addition to using a proxy for quality of care, as well as the gender disparity ratio to assess the levels of inequities and quality of care for peptic ulcer disease worldwide among different demographical aspects.

The paper is simple and its writing style is comprehensible for the non specialized of readers. It uses easy to understand figures and graphs. The conclusion is supported by valid data.

This kind of analysis is useful in aiding policy makers in deciding on interventions to combat peptic ulcer disease at the root cause, because the study takes into consideration sociodemographic determinants of health, which in turn affect health outcomes and quality of care.

Authors

The authors appreciate the encouraging comments of the reviewer.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer

1. All acronyms should be defined at the first mention of each of the acronyms in the manuscript.

Authors

The authors appreciate the fair and constructive comment of the reviewer. Amended.

Reviewer

2. What is NSAIDs?

Authors

Thank you for your comment. We double-checked the manuscript and realized that the abbreviation "NSAID" (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) was not defined in the text, which was then included in the text.

Reviewer

3. What are the criteria for the classifications of GBD super regions?

Authors

GBD 2019 included 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019 and a systematic analysis of 286 causes of death, 369 diseases and injuries, and 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories [1,2]. GBD classified countries and territories into 21 regions based on epidemiological homogeneity and geographical contiguity [3]. The regions were also grouped into seven super-regions based on the cause of death patterns [4]. The seven super-regions are High income; Latin America & Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa & Middle East; Southeast Asia, East Asia & Oceania; South Asia; Central Europe, Eastern Europe & Central Asia.

The data source section of the methods was revised and now reads:

The study data were derived from GBD 2019, conducted by IHME. GBD 2019 included 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019 and a systematic analysis of 286 causes of death, 369 diseases and injuries, and 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories [1,2]. GBD classified countries and territories into 21 regions based on epidemiological homogeneity and geographical contiguity [3]. The regions were also grouped into seven super-regions based on the cause of death patterns [4]. The seven super-regions are High income; Latin America & Caribbean; Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa & Middle East; Southeast Asia, East Asia & Oceania; South Asia; Central Europe, Eastern Europe & Central Asia. The data of PUD was extracted from GBD 2019: GBD code: B.4.2.1, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision, World Health Organization version 10 (ICD-10) code: K-25 to K28.9 [7]. Data sources used to provide estimates in GBD 2019 are presented in Supplementary Table 1. In terms of the development status, countries were categorized using the GBD Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) [8].

Reviewer

4. Please remove the list of abbreviations at the end of the manuscript.

Authors

Thank you for your comment. Amended.

Reviewer 3

Reviewer

This study has been conducted using the data derived from the Global Burden of Disease study 19990 – 2019. The objective of this study was to compare the health-system quality-of-care and inequities for Peptic Ulcer Disease (PUD) among age groups and sexes worldwide. The authors have concluded that the Quality of Care Index of PUD improved dramatically during 1990-2019 worldwide. There are still significant heterogeneities among countries both on different and on similar SDI-levels.

The rationale for the study is clear and valid. The authors have used a technically suitable protocol and a feasible methodology to effectively achieve the study's aims.

However, I have the following concerns about their methodology.

Authors

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the encouraging opinion. They also appreciate the fair and constructive comments of the reviewer.

Reviewer

1.) QCI is a relatively new index attempting to estimate the health care quality at the population level. The index was developed using a linear combination of mortality to incidence, DALY to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and YLL to YLD ratios estimated using an acceptable statistical method. However, the authors should elaborate on interpreting the QCI relevant to the subject matter under consideration. To me, the QCI is too composite.

Authors

The authors appreciate the fair and constructive comment of the reviewer. We reviewed the methods section and agree that further details need to be included. The quality of care index section in the methods now reads:

To determine QCI for PUD, the following indices were defined as follows:

Mortality to incidence ratio of PUD=(# Age-standardizaed PUD mortality)/(# Age-standardizaed PUD Incidence)

The mortality to incidence ratio of PUD indicates that with a stable PUD incidence in regions, higher mortality values could represent worse care provided to these patients.

DALY to prevalence ratio of PUD=(# Age-standardizaed DALY of PUD )/(# Age-standardizaed PUD prevalence )

DALY to prevalence ratio of PUD indicates that with a similar prevalence of PUD in regions, higher DALY could represent worse care quality.

Prevalence to incidence ratio of PUD=(# Age-standardizaed PUD prevalence )/(# Age-standardizaed PUD incidence)

The prevalence to incidence ratio of PUD indicates that in regions with similar PUD incidence, higher prevalence could represent better PUD management to avert mortality.

YLL to YLD ratio of PUD=(# Age-standardizaed YLL of PUD )/(# Age-standardizaed YLD of PUD)

YLL to YLD ratio of PUD could reflect the quality of healthcare in a region, as poor health quality provided for PUD in a region would result in higher YLLs and fewer YLDs. In other words, patients would live less than the life expectancy of the region).

Moreover, the section describing the Principal Components Analysis was revised, which now reads:

PCA would allow us to reduce the number of variables in a large set of correlated variables to a smaller number of variables that collectively explain most of the variance in the original set [9]. The first component of PCA was made up of a linear combination of the four abovementioned ratios, including mortality to incidence, DALY to prevalence, prevalence to incidence, and YLL to YLD, containing the most significant amount of information about these variables and is referred to as QCI in this study. QCI ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the best quality of care [10-14].

Reviewer

2.) The rationale of selecting or dividing the QCI into different levels (Level 1 to 5) is not clearly explained in terms of their relative importance. For example, the difference between levels 1 and 5 when considering the service delivery outcomes at the operational level is challenging to comprehend. How a country should move from level 1 to 5 is not clear.

Authors

Thank you for your meticulous comment. For enhanced interpretation and comparison of countries, QCI was categorized as five levels in 2019 based on quintiles, where Level 1 (the first quintile) indicated the highest index and Level 5 (the fifth quintile) the lowest: Level 5 included QCI ≤69.14, Level 4 QCI>69.14 to 75.23, Level 3 QCI>75.23 to 81.33, Level 2 QCI>81.33 to 86.35, and Level 1 QCI≥86.35.

We revised the corresponding section in the methods, which now reads:

PCA was performed using R software version 3.5.2. For enhanced interpretation and comparison of countries, QCI was categorized as five levels in 2019 based on quintiles, where Level 1 (the first quintile) indicated the highest index and Level 5 (the fifth quintile) the lowest: Level 5 included QCI ≤69.14, Level 4 QCI>69.14 to 75.23, Level 3 QCI>75.23 to 81.33, Level 2 QCI>81.33 to 86.35, and Level 1 QCI≥86.35

We also revised the last paragraph of the discussion on the witnessed heterogeneities across countries in terms of PUD:

This study also highlights the considerable existing heterogeneity across the globe regarding the changes in prevalence, incidence, and mortality of PUD. While the age-standardized mortality rate due to PUD has decreased by 69% in high-SDI countries, low and low-middle SDI countries remain to have the highest age-standardized PUD mortality rate despite previous endeavors. The reasons for the witnessed heterogeneity could be larger family size, low socioeconomic status, overcrowding, poor sanitation, having an infected sibling, growth retardation, and nutritional deficiencies, particularly iron-deficiency anemia in low SDI countries [15,16]. The witnessed gaps and inequities call for concerted efforts to lessen the burden of PUD in areas with limited resources. Given the level of technology, expenses, and the expertise required for complications management of PUD, its early detection and prevention seem feasible and cost-effective [17]. However, further research is required to determine the most suitable strategies for early detection, treatment, and follow-up based on available resources.

Reviewer

3.) The major drawback was that the estimates lacked the confidence intervals to compare the different levels defined. The study's authors have highlighted this drawback, but it is better to get expert statistical advice to overcome this fundamental limitation.

Authors

Thank you for your meticulous comment. Kindly note that in this study, PCA was used to generate QCI, which is a mathematical method [18]. GBD utilizes statistical methods to estimate the burden measures, i.e. DALYs, YLLs, YLDs, death, incidences, and prevalence. Nevertheless, PCA did not allow us to present any uncertainty values; thus, the study does not report confidence or uncertainty intervals.

We revised the strengths and limitations section of the manuscript accordingly, which now reads:

QCI combined mortality to incidence ratio [19], DALYs to prevalence ratio [20], prevalence to incidence ratio [21], and YLLs to YLDs ratio [22] into a single index, aiming to demonstrate the quality of care among countries [11-13,22-25]. Although QCI does not reflect all the aspects of the quality of services among healthcare systems, it could be used as a proxy for comparing various countries. The review of the existing literature also confirmed that the current situation of PUD on a global scale and its time trends during 1990-2019 mainly were consistent with the picture, as shown via QCI [26-29]. In addition, it showed an acceptable correlation with the HAQ Index for PUD. The advantage of QCI is that, unlike HAQ Index, it could be used to present inequities among both sexes, age groups, and in all the seven GBD super-regions and 21 regions.

Moreover, we used the estimates of GBD 2019, while the latest published HAQ Index used the data of GBD 2016 [23]. However, QCI does not currently capture subnational inequalities, and future efforts with a better geospatial resolution on sub-national levels need to be prioritized. Despite using as many data sources as possible, the GBD study includes estimations based on the predictive covariates in locations with scarce data sources. Since the data of this study were derived from the GBD study, the limitations experienced in GBD estimations also apply to this study [30]. Among risk factors of PUD, smoking was the only risk factor with sufficient data to be modeled in the GBD study 2019. In this study, PCA was used to generate QCI, which is a mathematical method [18]. GBD utilizes statistical methods to estimate the burden measures, i.e. DALYs, YLLs, YLDs, death, incidences, and prevalence. Nevertheless, PCA did not allow us to present any uncertainty values; thus, the study does not report confidence or uncertainty intervals. Despite its limitations, the current study could show the big picture of the current inequities regarding PUD management based on geographical distribution, sex, and age groups to empower policymakers in making well-informed decisions.

Reviewer

4) Few spelling mistakes were noted.

Authors

The authors appreciate the reviewer's opinion. We asked a bilingual native English professor at our institution to thoroughly review and revise the manuscript regarding possible grammar and syntax errors to ensure enhanced readability. In addition, we used "Grammarly", a cross-platform cloud-based writing assistant that reviews spelling, grammar, punctuation, clarity, engagement, and delivery mistakes.

References

1. Abbafati C, Machado DB, Cislaghi B, Salman OM, Karanikolos M, McKee M, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396: 1204–1222. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9

2. Murray CJL, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396: 1223–1249. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2

3. Murray CJL, Ezzati M, Flaxman AD, Lim S, Lozano R, Michaud C, et al. GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet (London, England). 2012;380: 2063–2066. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61899-6

4. Frequently Asked Questions | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. [cited 16 May 2022]. Available: https://www.healthdata.org/gbd/faq

5. Mohammadi E, Ghasemi E, Moghaddam SS, Yoosefi M, Roshani S, Ahmadi N, et al. Quality of Care Index (QCI). protocols.io. 2020.

6. VizHub - GBD Results. [cited 22 May 2022]. Available: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/

7. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet (London, England). 2018;392: 1789–1858. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7

8. Mokdad AH, Mensah GA, Krish V, Glenn SD, Miller-Petrie MK, Lopez AD, et al. Global, regional, national, and subnational big data to inform health equity research: Persp ectives from the global burden of disease study 2017. Ethn Dis. 2019;29: 159–172. doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.159

9. Rencher AC, Schimek MG. Methods of multivariate analysis. Comput Stat. 1997;12: 422.

10. Quality of Care Index (QCI). [cited 17 Mar 2021]. Available: https://www.protocols.io/view/quality-of-care-index-qci-bprjmm4n.html

11. Azadnajafabad S, Saeedi Moghaddam S, Mohammadi E, Rezaei N, Ghasemi E, Fattahi N, et al. Global, regional, and national burden and quality of care index (QCI) of thyroid cancer: A systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2017. Cancer Med. 2021;00: cam4.3823. doi:10.1002/cam4.3823

12. Mohammadi E, Ghasemi E, Azadnajafabad S, Rezaei N, Saeedi Moghaddam S, Ebrahimi Meimand S, et al. A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of brain and other central nervous system cancers; global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990-2017. Huang T, editor. PLoS One. 2021;16: e0247120. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247120

13. Keykhaei M, Masinaei M, Mohammadi E, Azadnajafabad S, Rezaei N, Saeedi Moghaddam S, et al. A global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of hematologic malignancies; global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990–2017. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2021;10: 11. doi:10.1186/s40164-021-00198-2

14. Aryannejad A, Tabary M, Ebrahimi N, Mohammadi E, Fattahi N, Roshani S, et al. Global, regional, and national survey on the burden and quality of care of pancreatic cancer; a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 1990–2017. Pancreatology. 2021. doi:10.1016/J.PAN.2021.09.002

15. Abdul Rahim NR, Benson J, Grocke K, Vather D, Zimmerman J, Moody T, et al. Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in newly arrived refugees attending the Migrant Health Service, South Australia. Helicobacter. 2017;22: e12360. doi:10.1111/hel.12360

16. Mungazi SG, Chihaka OB, Muguti GI. Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in asymptomatic patients at surgical outpatient department: Harare hospitals. Ann Med Surg. 2018;35: 153–157. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2018.09.040

17. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Meester RGS, Laszkowska M, Escudero FA, Ward ZJ, Yeh JM. Cost-effectiveness of prevention and early detection of gastric cancer in Western countries. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2021;50–51: 101735. doi:10.1016/J.BPG.2021.101735

18. Johnson RA, Wichern DW. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Pearson London, UK:; 2014.

19. Choi E, Lee S, Nhung BC, Suh M, Park B, Jun JK, et al. Cancer mortality-to-incidence ratio as an indicator of cancer management outcomes in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39: e2017006. doi:10.4178/epih.e2017006

20. Chang AY, Skirbekk VF, Tyrovolas S, Kassebaum NJ, Dieleman JL. Measuring population ageing: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Public Heal. 2019;4: e159–e167. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30019-2

21. Han C, Zhao N, Gaslightwala A, Bala M. An epidemiological and healthcare utilisation study of rheumatoid arthritis in an adult population in the US. J Med Econ. 2007;10: 489–499. doi:10.3111/13696990701701745

22. Khalil I, El Bcheraoui C, Charara R, Moradi-Lakeh M, Afshin A, Kassebaum NJ, et al. Transport injuries and deaths in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study. Int J Public Health. 2018;63: 187–198. doi:10.1007/s00038-017-0987-0

23. Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391: 2236–2271. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30994-2

24. Momtazmanesh S, Saeedi Moghaddam S, Malakan Rad E, Azadnajafabad S, Ebrahimi N, Mohammadi E, et al. Global, regional, and national burden and quality of care index of endocarditis: the global burden of disease study 1990–2019. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021.

25. Nejad M, Ahmadi N, Mohammadi E, Shabani M, Sherafati A, Aryannejad A, et al. Global and regional burden and quality of care of non-rheumatic valvular heart diseases: a systematic analysis of Global Burden of Disease 1990–2017. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2022;34: mzac026.

26. Sung JJY, Kuipers EJ, El-Serag HB. Systematic review: the global incidence and prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29: 938–946. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03960.x

27. Kavitt RT, Lipowska AM, Anyane-Yeboa A, Gralnek IM. Diagnosis and Treatment of Peptic Ulcer Disease. Am J Med. 2019;132: 447–456. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.12.009

28. Barber RM, Fullman N, Sorensen RJD, Bollyky T, McKee M, Nolte E, et al. Healthcare access and quality index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: A novel analysis from the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet. 2017;390: 231–266. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30818-8

29. Fullman N, Yearwood J, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abd-Allah F, Abdela J, et al. Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018;391: 2236–2271. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30994-2

30. Roth GA, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392: 1736–1788. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32203-7

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jun 2022

Quality of care of peptic ulcer disease worldwide: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 1990-2019

PONE-D-22-00730R1

Dear Dr. Farzadfar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dinh-Toi Chu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

21 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-00730R1

Quality of care of peptic ulcer disease worldwide: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 1990-2019

Dear Dr. Farzadfar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dinh-Toi Chu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE