Title: Safety and efficacy of non-fluoroscopic endoscopic dilatation of gastrointestinal
tuberculosis related strictures
Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2021
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors describe an interesting case series where GI TB strictures have been managed
endoscopically. The main strength is the sample size.
One of the biggest limitation is the lack of objective diagnosis of TB in the participants.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have satisfactorily responded to most of the queries raised by previous reviewer. I
have indicated some of my thoughts below.
* What is the reason to include patients over 12 years? Is it the admission policy of the hospital?
* ""The dilatation was judged technically successful if the stricture could be negotiated using
a wire guided CRE and the endoscopist proceeded with the initial dilation"". – Do you mean
passing the scope through the dilation?
* quantitative variables – do you mean scale variables
* 7 were confirmed cases based on microbiological positivity – what were the tests Biopsy/
culture/interferon
* imminent need for surgery because of non-relenting obstruction were excluded from the study
- In 4 patients (three having terminal ileal stricture and one having stricture at the ileocecal
junction), TTS-CRE balloon dilator could not be passed across the stricture and this was
considered as technical failure (11.8%) – Shouldn’t they have been excluded according to your
criteria?
* Table 1 shows the outcomes of endoscopic dilatation in definite GITB, probable GITB and
Crohn’s disease related strictures – Was there a statistically significant difference? Can you
calculate one?
Writing style - Usual convention is to have the full stop after the citation."
Title: Safety and efficacy of non-fluoroscopic endoscopic dilatation of gastrointestinal
tuberculosis related strictures
Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2021
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors describe an interesting case series where GI TB strictures have been managed
endoscopically. The main strength is the sample size.
One of the biggest limitation is the lack of objective diagnosis of TB in the participants.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have satisfactorily responded to most of the queries raised by previous reviewer. I
have indicated some of my thoughts below.
* What is the reason to include patients over 12 years? Is it the admission policy of the hospital?
* ""The dilatation was judged technically successful if the stricture could be negotiated using
a wire guided CRE and the endoscopist proceeded with the initial dilation"". – Do you mean
passing the scope through the dilation?
* quantitative variables – do you mean scale variables
* 7 were confirmed cases based on microbiological positivity – what were the tests Biopsy/
culture/interferon
* imminent need for surgery because of non-relenting obstruction were excluded from the study
- In 4 patients (three having terminal ileal stricture and one having stricture at the ileocecal
junction), TTS-CRE balloon dilator could not be passed across the stricture and this was
considered as technical failure (11.8%) – Shouldn’t they have been excluded according to your
criteria?
* Table 1 shows the outcomes of endoscopic dilatation in definite GITB, probable GITB and
Crohn’s disease related strictures – Was there a statistically significant difference? Can you
calculate one?
Writing style - Usual convention is to have the full stop after the citation."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Safety and efficacy of non-fluoroscopic endoscopic dilatation of gastrointestinal
tuberculosis related strictures
Version: 4 Date: 27 Dec 2021
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors describe an interesting case series where GI TB strictures have been managed
endoscopically. The main strength is the sample size.
One of the biggest limitation is the lack of objective diagnosis of TB in the participants.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors have satisfactorily responded to most of the queries raised by previous reviewer. I
have indicated some of my thoughts below.
* What is the reason to include patients over 12 years? Is it the admission policy of the hospital?
* ""The dilatation was judged technically successful if the stricture could be negotiated using
a wire guided CRE and the endoscopist proceeded with the initial dilation"". – Do you mean
passing the scope through the dilation?
* quantitative variables – do you mean scale variables
* 7 were confirmed cases based on microbiological positivity – what were the tests Biopsy/
culture/interferon
* imminent need for surgery because of non-relenting obstruction were excluded from the study
- In 4 patients (three having terminal ileal stricture and one having stricture at the ileocecal
junction), TTS-CRE balloon dilator could not be passed across the stricture and this was
considered as technical failure (11.8%) – Shouldn’t they have been excluded according to your
criteria?
* Table 1 shows the outcomes of endoscopic dilatation in definite GITB, probable GITB and
Crohn’s disease related strictures – Was there a statistically significant difference? Can you
calculate one?
Writing style - Usual convention is to have the full stop after the citation."
assistant