Title: Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical
outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I have reviewed the manuscript submission ID 7c194227-67ed-4694-b134-d67c2d4afe2d
entitled “Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of
clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding” with
interest. However, there are many major and minor concerns as the following items;
Major concerns
Abstract
1. The authors should provide the AUC data of each comparison rather than only p-value. It is
impossible to understand which scoring system is effective to predict individual outcome in the
current form. Please consider revise.
2. The conclusion was not relevant to the result and too long.  Please consider revise.
Full manuscript
3. The authors stated that “Rebleeding also included cases requiring a second endoscopy,
interventional radiology, or surgery.” This may incorrect as we could not label the patient
underwent second look EGD but did not have additional endoscopic hemostasis with rebleeding.
4. How did the authors know the severity of upper GI bleeding if they did not perform EGD
in the included patients? They stated that “Most patients underwent endoscopy” with unknown
percentage. It would be better to know if the mortality were related to UGIB or not.
5. The authors did not mention about T-score in the introduction part at all. It is difficult for the
readers to follow this study. Please add the background of all assessed scoring system.
6. Why the authors did not calculate the p-value of other baseline characteristic in table 1 eg.
current medication, laboratory testing, endoscopic finding, etc.
7. Please provide the reference in each proper sentence eg. “The incidence of UGIB has declined
dramatically over the past decade.”, “..a mortality rate  4%-10% worldwide” in discussion part,
etc.
8. In table 1, what were the endoscopic findings in “Others”? Please put the details.
9. The major limitation of this study is the scattering, non-focus information. It seems that
the scoring system is helpful in younger patients but not elderly patients but they could not
convey the message to the reader. The authors should re-write the result and discussion part to
demonstrate the benefit of scoring system in each age group.
10. This manuscript is difficult to follow esp. in discussion part. It may need English editing
before re-submission.
Minor concerns
1. Some typing errors were detected, eg. “maligancy” in Table 1.
Title: Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical
outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I have reviewed the manuscript submission ID 7c194227-67ed-4694-b134-d67c2d4afe2d
entitled “Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of
clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding” with
interest. However, there are many major and minor concerns as the following items;
Major concerns
Abstract
1. The authors should provide the AUC data of each comparison rather than only p-value. It is
impossible to understand which scoring system is effective to predict individual outcome in the
current form. Please consider revise.
2. The conclusion was not relevant to the result and too long.  Please consider revise.
Full manuscript
3. The authors stated that “Rebleeding also included cases requiring a second endoscopy,
interventional radiology, or surgery.” This may incorrect as we could not label the patient
underwent second look EGD but did not have additional endoscopic hemostasis with rebleeding.
4. How did the authors know the severity of upper GI bleeding if they did not perform EGD
in the included patients? They stated that “Most patients underwent endoscopy” with unknown
percentage. It would be better to know if the mortality were related to UGIB or not.
5. The authors did not mention about T-score in the introduction part at all. It is difficult for the
readers to follow this study. Please add the background of all assessed scoring system.
6. Why the authors did not calculate the p-value of other baseline characteristic in table 1 eg.
current medication, laboratory testing, endoscopic finding, etc.
7. Please provide the reference in each proper sentence eg. “The incidence of UGIB has declined
dramatically over the past decade.”, “..a mortality rate  4%-10% worldwide” in discussion part,
etc.
8. In table 1, what were the endoscopic findings in “Others”? Please put the details.
9. The major limitation of this study is the scattering, non-focus information. It seems that
the scoring system is helpful in younger patients but not elderly patients but they could not
convey the message to the reader. The authors should re-write the result and discussion part to
demonstrate the benefit of scoring system in each age group.
10. This manuscript is difficult to follow esp. in discussion part. It may need English editing
before re-submission.
Minor concerns
1. Some typing errors were detected, eg. “maligancy” in Table 1.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical
outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 23 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear Editor,
I have reviewed the manuscript submission ID 7c194227-67ed-4694-b134-d67c2d4afe2d
entitled “Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of
clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding” with
interest. However, there are many major and minor concerns as the following items;
Major concerns
Abstract
1. The authors should provide the AUC data of each comparison rather than only p-value. It is
impossible to understand which scoring system is effective to predict individual outcome in the
current form. Please consider revise.
2. The conclusion was not relevant to the result and too long.  Please consider revise.
Full manuscript
3. The authors stated that “Rebleeding also included cases requiring a second endoscopy,
interventional radiology, or surgery.” This may incorrect as we could not label the patient
underwent second look EGD but did not have additional endoscopic hemostasis with rebleeding.
4. How did the authors know the severity of upper GI bleeding if they did not perform EGD
in the included patients? They stated that “Most patients underwent endoscopy” with unknown
percentage. It would be better to know if the mortality were related to UGIB or not.
5. The authors did not mention about T-score in the introduction part at all. It is difficult for the
readers to follow this study. Please add the background of all assessed scoring system.
6. Why the authors did not calculate the p-value of other baseline characteristic in table 1 eg.
current medication, laboratory testing, endoscopic finding, etc.
7. Please provide the reference in each proper sentence eg. “The incidence of UGIB has declined
dramatically over the past decade.”, “..a mortality rate  4%-10% worldwide” in discussion part,
etc.
8. In table 1, what were the endoscopic findings in “Others”? Please put the details.
9. The major limitation of this study is the scattering, non-focus information. It seems that
the scoring system is helpful in younger patients but not elderly patients but they could not
convey the message to the reader. The authors should re-write the result and discussion part to
demonstrate the benefit of scoring system in each age group.
10. This manuscript is difficult to follow esp. in discussion part. It may need English editing
before re-submission.
Minor concerns
1. Some typing errors were detected, eg. “maligancy” in Table 1.
assistant