Reviewer’s report
Title: Usefulness of panoramic 344°-viewing in Crohn ’s disease capsule endoscopy: a proof of
concept pilot study with the novel PillCam ™ Crohn’s System
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Samuel Adler
Reviewer's report:
this paper confirms the position that capsule endoscopy should be applied in the assessment of disease
activity in established crohn's disease.
relevant endoscopic findings are defined as "diffuse edema, ulcers and strictures". While the presence
of ulcers and strictures are clear and significant findings, the value of diffuse edema is far weaker and
to a significant degree less objective. i strongly recommend you separate hard findings like ulcers and
strictures from diffuse edema.
it is not clear to me after reading your paper carefully what  the clinical impact of the two camera pill
versus the one camera pill is.
precisely the information that is needed: how many patients in the suspected crohns disease group
would have been diagnosed with one camera only versus two cameras?
if disease severity is an issue than the question that has to be addressed is : in how many additional
cases did the two camera study versus the one camera study results lead to a change in medical
treatment.
the question should be specifically addressed in the established crohns disease group
a simple table would be very helpful
the sentences page 10 line 56/57 and page 11 line 0 are unclear and have to be rephrased.
a comment on how much more reading time has to be invested in reading two camera study versus a
one camera study would be welcome as well as a note that the image quality of the PCS is inferior to
the SB3 image quality
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
i have given capsule seminars for doctors sponsored by medtronic
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title: Usefulness of panoramic 344°-viewing in Crohn ’s disease capsule endoscopy: a proof of
concept pilot study with the novel PillCam ™ Crohn’s System
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Samuel Adler
Reviewer's report:
this paper confirms the position that capsule endoscopy should be applied in the assessment of disease
activity in established crohn's disease.
relevant endoscopic findings are defined as "diffuse edema, ulcers and strictures". While the presence
of ulcers and strictures are clear and significant findings, the value of diffuse edema is far weaker and
to a significant degree less objective. i strongly recommend you separate hard findings like ulcers and
strictures from diffuse edema.
it is not clear to me after reading your paper carefully what  the clinical impact of the two camera pill
versus the one camera pill is.
precisely the information that is needed: how many patients in the suspected crohns disease group
would have been diagnosed with one camera only versus two cameras?
if disease severity is an issue than the question that has to be addressed is : in how many additional
cases did the two camera study versus the one camera study results lead to a change in medical
treatment.
the question should be specifically addressed in the established crohns disease group
a simple table would be very helpful
the sentences page 10 line 56/57 and page 11 line 0 are unclear and have to be rephrased.
a comment on how much more reading time has to be invested in reading two camera study versus a
one camera study would be welcome as well as a note that the image quality of the PCS is inferior to
the SB3 image quality
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
i have given capsule seminars for doctors sponsored by medtronic
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: Usefulness of panoramic 344°-viewing in Crohn ’s disease capsule endoscopy: a proof of
concept pilot study with the novel PillCam ™ Crohn’s System
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2020
Reviewer: Samuel Adler
Reviewer's report:
this paper confirms the position that capsule endoscopy should be applied in the assessment of disease
activity in established crohn's disease.
relevant endoscopic findings are defined as "diffuse edema, ulcers and strictures". While the presence
of ulcers and strictures are clear and significant findings, the value of diffuse edema is far weaker and
to a significant degree less objective. i strongly recommend you separate hard findings like ulcers and
strictures from diffuse edema.
it is not clear to me after reading your paper carefully what  the clinical impact of the two camera pill
versus the one camera pill is.
precisely the information that is needed: how many patients in the suspected crohns disease group
would have been diagnosed with one camera only versus two cameras?
if disease severity is an issue than the question that has to be addressed is : in how many additional
cases did the two camera study versus the one camera study results lead to a change in medical
treatment.
the question should be specifically addressed in the established crohns disease group
a simple table would be very helpful
the sentences page 10 line 56/57 and page 11 line 0 are unclear and have to be rephrased.
a comment on how much more reading time has to be invested in reading two camera study versus a
one camera study would be welcome as well as a note that the image quality of the PCS is inferior to
the SB3 image quality
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
i have given capsule seminars for doctors sponsored by medtronic
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons
CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant