Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I have read your study and below you can find some suggestions about revision.
There is a confusing result among the abstract and highlights section about the mortality and
hospitalization rates. It needs to be clarified
Checking about the language is recommended. For example in the Introduction section the
sentence “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB given that it can give not
only detection but also successful endoscopic hemostasis in instances with active hemorrhage
lesions” may be revised as “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB not only
for diagnosis but endoscopic treatment in active bleeding lesions also.”
In Materials and Methods section the sentence “Patients were younger than eighteen, or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included
in our analysis” can be revised as “Patients younger than eighteen years old, and/or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included in our
analysis.”
“Based on the date of the endoscope…”. Does this sentence mean the date of endoscopy or the
timing of endoscopy?
“During the first twelve hours, endoscopic intervention was performed on patients who
continued to hemorrhage…” can be changed as “During the first twelve hours, endoscopic
intervention was performed on patients who continued bleeding…”
And even more revisions about language may be useful.
In the results section you explained your tables in each paragraph. However, it is expected that
you explain your findings first and refer the tables in which you show your data at the end of
the paragraph.
You mentioned that your study is the first study in the literature about timing of endoscopy in
the elderly patient with UGIB.  Which databases did you search using which keywords to be
sure about this postulation?
Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I have read your study and below you can find some suggestions about revision.
There is a confusing result among the abstract and highlights section about the mortality and
hospitalization rates. It needs to be clarified
Checking about the language is recommended. For example in the Introduction section the
sentence “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB given that it can give not
only detection but also successful endoscopic hemostasis in instances with active hemorrhage
lesions” may be revised as “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB not only
for diagnosis but endoscopic treatment in active bleeding lesions also.”
In Materials and Methods section the sentence “Patients were younger than eighteen, or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included
in our analysis” can be revised as “Patients younger than eighteen years old, and/or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included in our
analysis.”
“Based on the date of the endoscope…”. Does this sentence mean the date of endoscopy or the
timing of endoscopy?
“During the first twelve hours, endoscopic intervention was performed on patients who
continued to hemorrhage…” can be changed as “During the first twelve hours, endoscopic
intervention was performed on patients who continued bleeding…”
And even more revisions about language may be useful.
In the results section you explained your tables in each paragraph. However, it is expected that
you explain your findings first and refer the tables in which you show your data at the end of
the paragraph.
You mentioned that your study is the first study in the literature about timing of endoscopy in
the elderly patient with UGIB.  Which databases did you search using which keywords to be
sure about this postulation?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Optimal Endoscopy Timing in Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Non-Variceal
Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Version: 2 Date: 20 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
I have read your study and below you can find some suggestions about revision.
There is a confusing result among the abstract and highlights section about the mortality and
hospitalization rates. It needs to be clarified
Checking about the language is recommended. For example in the Introduction section the
sentence “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB given that it can give not
only detection but also successful endoscopic hemostasis in instances with active hemorrhage
lesions” may be revised as “Endoscopy is commonly suggested for patients with UGIB not only
for diagnosis but endoscopic treatment in active bleeding lesions also.”
In Materials and Methods section the sentence “Patients were younger than eighteen, or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included
in our analysis” can be revised as “Patients younger than eighteen years old, and/or whose
clinical status had declined prevented them from having an endoscopy were not included in our
analysis.”
“Based on the date of the endoscope…”. Does this sentence mean the date of endoscopy or the
timing of endoscopy?
“During the first twelve hours, endoscopic intervention was performed on patients who
continued to hemorrhage…” can be changed as “During the first twelve hours, endoscopic
intervention was performed on patients who continued bleeding…”
And even more revisions about language may be useful.
In the results section you explained your tables in each paragraph. However, it is expected that
you explain your findings first and refer the tables in which you show your data at the end of
the paragraph.
You mentioned that your study is the first study in the literature about timing of endoscopy in
the elderly patient with UGIB.  Which databases did you search using which keywords to be
sure about this postulation?
assistant