Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A comparison of the diagnosis of gastroparesis in 4 hour ped iatric gastric emptying studies 
versus 2 hour studies  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov  2018  
 
Reviewer: Efstratios Saliakellis  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I would like to thank the authors for their response.  
 
 
Please the authors to consider addressing the following comments:  
 
 
As data on previous upper GI endoscopy, upper GI contrast series were not provided, it is 
necessary to include / confirm in the gastric emptying scintigraphy methodology that a 
mechanical obstruction of the GI tract has been excluded prior to the scintigra phy. 
 
 
During my initial review I have asked the authors to further elaborate on the gastric emptying 
physiology and enrich their discussion, hoping that they would have had data on gastric 
accommodation obtained during the scintigraphy. The authors have inc luded a paragraph in their 
discussion. I was hoping however that the latter would have been combined with data available 
from the scintigrpahy (eg gastric accommodation); unfortunately, such data are not available for 
discussion, and therefore it will be b etter not to include the paragraph in the discussion (authors 
may wish to include it in the introduction - I will leave this to their discretion).  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by  the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript 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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the fut ure? 
 
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 declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be publishe d. 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A comparison of the diagnosis of gastroparesis in 4 hour ped iatric gastric emptying studies 
versus 2 hour studies  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov  2018  
 
Reviewer: Efstratios Saliakellis  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I would like to thank the authors for their response.  
 
 
Please the authors to consider addressing the following comments:  
 
 
As data on previous upper GI endoscopy, upper GI contrast series were not provided, it is 
necessary to include / confirm in the gastric emptying scintigraphy methodology that a 
mechanical obstruction of the GI tract has been excluded prior to the scintigra phy. 
 
 
During my initial review I have asked the authors to further elaborate on the gastric emptying 
physiology and enrich their discussion, hoping that they would have had data on gastric 
accommodation obtained during the scintigraphy. The authors have inc luded a paragraph in their 
discussion. I was hoping however that the latter would have been combined with data available 
from the scintigrpahy (eg gastric accommodation); unfortunately, such data are not available for 
discussion, and therefore it will be b etter not to include the paragraph in the discussion (authors 
may wish to include it in the introduction - I will leave this to their discretion).  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by  the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript 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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the fut ure? 
 
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 declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be publishe d. 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A comparison of the diagnosis of gastroparesis in 4 hour ped iatric gastric emptying studies 
versus 2 hour studies  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Nov  2018  
 
Reviewer: Efstratios Saliakellis  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I would like to thank the authors for their response.  
 
 
Please the authors to consider addressing the following comments:  
 
 
As data on previous upper GI endoscopy, upper GI contrast series were not provided, it is 
necessary to include / confirm in the gastric emptying scintigraphy methodology that a 
mechanical obstruction of the GI tract has been excluded prior to the scintigra phy. 
 
 
During my initial review I have asked the authors to further elaborate on the gastric emptying 
physiology and enrich their discussion, hoping that they would have had data on gastric 
accommodation obtained during the scintigraphy. The authors have inc luded a paragraph in their 
discussion. I was hoping however that the latter would have been combined with data available 
from the scintigrpahy (eg gastric accommodation); unfortunately, such data are not available for 
discussion, and therefore it will be b etter not to include the paragraph in the discussion (authors 
may wish to include it in the introduction - I will leave this to their discretion).  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by  the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript 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.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the fut ure? 
 
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 declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acce pted f or 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be publishe d. 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant