Reviewer's report 
 Findings in patients with chronic intestinal dysmotility investigated by capsule endoscopy Title: 
 1  7 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Warwick Selby Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting and original study. There are some limititations but the findings show that CE can be 
done on patients with CID, assuming that obstruction has been ruled out as far as possible as it was in these subjects. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) The major limitiation is that the capsule endoscopy studies do not appear to have been read blind. This 
makes interpretation of the findings difficult, particularly the claim that the authors could identify dilatation of 
the small intestine. There are no findings given for the controls, so we don't know whether they had 
mucosal breaks. It should be made clear how the controls were selected and if the studies were blinded. How many people read the studies? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 1. Was only one patient taking NSAIDs or aspirin. This should be stated in the methods, not just in the 
results for the patient with multiple ulcers. 
2. Table 1 should include whether the surgery that was done included a small bowel resection as this could affect transit. It is in the text but would be clearer in the table as well. 3. Were any of the patients anaemic or hypoproteinaemic, particularly those with mucosal 
breaks/ulcerations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Reviewer's report 
 Findings in patients with chronic intestinal dysmotility investigated by capsule endoscopy Title: 
 1  7 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Warwick Selby Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting and original study. There are some limititations but the findings show that CE can be 
done on patients with CID, assuming that obstruction has been ruled out as far as possible as it was in these subjects. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) The major limitiation is that the capsule endoscopy studies do not appear to have been read blind. This 
makes interpretation of the findings difficult, particularly the claim that the authors could identify dilatation of 
the small intestine. There are no findings given for the controls, so we don't know whether they had 
mucosal breaks. It should be made clear how the controls were selected and if the studies were blinded. How many people read the studies? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 1. Was only one patient taking NSAIDs or aspirin. This should be stated in the methods, not just in the 
results for the patient with multiple ulcers. 
2. Table 1 should include whether the surgery that was done included a small bowel resection as this could affect transit. It is in the text but would be clearer in the table as well. 3. Were any of the patients anaemic or hypoproteinaemic, particularly those with mucosal 
breaks/ulcerations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Findings in patients with chronic intestinal dysmotility investigated by capsule endoscopy Title: 
 1  7 May 2007 Version: Date: 
 Warwick Selby Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
This is an interesting and original study. There are some limititations but the findings show that CE can be 
done on patients with CID, assuming that obstruction has been ruled out as far as possible as it was in these subjects. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) The major limitiation is that the capsule endoscopy studies do not appear to have been read blind. This 
makes interpretation of the findings difficult, particularly the claim that the authors could identify dilatation of 
the small intestine. There are no findings given for the controls, so we don't know whether they had 
mucosal breaks. It should be made clear how the controls were selected and if the studies were blinded. How many people read the studies? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 1. Was only one patient taking NSAIDs or aspirin. This should be stated in the methods, not just in the 
results for the patient with multiple ulcers. 
2. Table 1 should include whether the surgery that was done included a small bowel resection as this could affect transit. It is in the text but would be clearer in the table as well. 3. Were any of the patients anaemic or hypoproteinaemic, particularly those with mucosal 
breaks/ulcerations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major What next?: 
compulsory revisions 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician. Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests 
assistant