Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:14 June 2011
Reviewer: Phil Dinning
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Authors.
This paper represents another stage in the use and validation of the magnetic
pill. In this instance it has been validated against “Pillcam” for the measurement
of gastric emptying and small bowel transit. Specific comments and questions
are listed below in the sections required by the journal:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. On page 3 in the opening paragraph of the introduction you state that
manometry has “unreliable measurement in non-sphincteric regions”. What is
your justification for this comment? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it
is unreliable?
2. In the data analysis section there are a host of techniques described. I would
like some information on how they were validated. For example how did you
decide on the definitions for the frequency data? Has the fast Fourier transform
analysis been validated? What does weight=0 and weight=1 mean?
3. In the results the frequency data has been presented collectively for the entire
small bowel. Did frequencies differ between the proximal and distal small bowel?
What was the frequency of contraction in the ascending colon or caecum? You
must have those data if you can confirm the ileocaecal transit. Is there a
significant drop in the frequency of contraction between the distal ileum and the
proximal colon.
4. It is mentioned in both the introduction and discussion that Pillcam may effect
contractions and transit? No references are provided in either instance. What
evidence do you have for this statement?
5. There is mention in the discussion that it was anticipated that the MTS-1 would
be able to measure MMC phase III activity. Why was this not mentioned in the
introduction as a potential aim?
6. Overall, while the technique correlates well with Pillcam, the paper fails to
provide any clear reason for why this technique would provide clinical or research
benefit over any of the other “transit’ pills. As pointed out in the paper SmartPill
already measures transit in the stomach, small bowel and colon and it is
completely ambulatory. The magnet pill requires someone to sit still for up to 8
hrs. It is mentioned in the discussion that MTS-1 can define segmental colonic
transit times but that isn’t the point of this paper. Can you detail any advantage in
using your technique over Smartpill? One of the real benefits seems to be the
ability to track the exact location of the pill.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. There are 7 figs and only 5 figure legends.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:14 June 2011
Reviewer: Phil Dinning
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Authors.
This paper represents another stage in the use and validation of the magnetic
pill. In this instance it has been validated against “Pillcam” for the measurement
of gastric emptying and small bowel transit. Specific comments and questions
are listed below in the sections required by the journal:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. On page 3 in the opening paragraph of the introduction you state that
manometry has “unreliable measurement in non-sphincteric regions”. What is
your justification for this comment? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it
is unreliable?
2. In the data analysis section there are a host of techniques described. I would
like some information on how they were validated. For example how did you
decide on the definitions for the frequency data? Has the fast Fourier transform
analysis been validated? What does weight=0 and weight=1 mean?
3. In the results the frequency data has been presented collectively for the entire
small bowel. Did frequencies differ between the proximal and distal small bowel?
What was the frequency of contraction in the ascending colon or caecum? You
must have those data if you can confirm the ileocaecal transit. Is there a
significant drop in the frequency of contraction between the distal ileum and the
proximal colon.
4. It is mentioned in both the introduction and discussion that Pillcam may effect
contractions and transit? No references are provided in either instance. What
evidence do you have for this statement?
5. There is mention in the discussion that it was anticipated that the MTS-1 would
be able to measure MMC phase III activity. Why was this not mentioned in the
introduction as a potential aim?
6. Overall, while the technique correlates well with Pillcam, the paper fails to
provide any clear reason for why this technique would provide clinical or research
benefit over any of the other “transit’ pills. As pointed out in the paper SmartPill
already measures transit in the stomach, small bowel and colon and it is
completely ambulatory. The magnet pill requires someone to sit still for up to 8
hrs. It is mentioned in the discussion that MTS-1 can define segmental colonic
transit times but that isn’t the point of this paper. Can you detail any advantage in
using your technique over Smartpill? One of the real benefits seems to be the
ability to track the exact location of the pill.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. There are 7 figs and only 5 figure legends.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:14 June 2011
Reviewer: Phil Dinning
Reviewer's report:
Comments to Authors.
This paper represents another stage in the use and validation of the magnetic
pill. In this instance it has been validated against “Pillcam” for the measurement
of gastric emptying and small bowel transit. Specific comments and questions
are listed below in the sections required by the journal:
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. On page 3 in the opening paragraph of the introduction you state that
manometry has “unreliable measurement in non-sphincteric regions”. What is
your justification for this comment? Do you have any evidence to suggest that it
is unreliable?
2. In the data analysis section there are a host of techniques described. I would
like some information on how they were validated. For example how did you
decide on the definitions for the frequency data? Has the fast Fourier transform
analysis been validated? What does weight=0 and weight=1 mean?
3. In the results the frequency data has been presented collectively for the entire
small bowel. Did frequencies differ between the proximal and distal small bowel?
What was the frequency of contraction in the ascending colon or caecum? You
must have those data if you can confirm the ileocaecal transit. Is there a
significant drop in the frequency of contraction between the distal ileum and the
proximal colon.
4. It is mentioned in both the introduction and discussion that Pillcam may effect
contractions and transit? No references are provided in either instance. What
evidence do you have for this statement?
5. There is mention in the discussion that it was anticipated that the MTS-1 would
be able to measure MMC phase III activity. Why was this not mentioned in the
introduction as a potential aim?
6. Overall, while the technique correlates well with Pillcam, the paper fails to
provide any clear reason for why this technique would provide clinical or research
benefit over any of the other “transit’ pills. As pointed out in the paper SmartPill
already measures transit in the stomach, small bowel and colon and it is
completely ambulatory. The magnet pill requires someone to sit still for up to 8
hrs. It is mentioned in the discussion that MTS-1 can define segmental colonic
transit times but that isn’t the point of this paper. Can you detail any advantage in
using your technique over Smartpill? One of the real benefits seems to be the
ability to track the exact location of the pill.
Minor Essential Revisions
1. There are 7 figs and only 5 figure legends.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant