Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:6Date:11 May 2015
Reviewer: meir mizrahi
Reviewer's report:
Summary: This is a retrospective study over approximately 800 patients who had
OGIB, of those 238 patients underwent both CE and DBE, of those 77 patients
were excluded due to incomplete small bowel visualization, the rest of the
patients were divided based on the capsule and endoscopic procedure in to 2
groups, angioectasia and non angioectasia groups. The authors sought to
determine factors which may predict the presence of small bowel angiectasia and
which is the best way to treat those angiectasia based on Yano – Yamamoto’s
classification. Patients with angioectasia 1b were further divided in to 2 treatment
groups 1 with single treatment with polidocanol injection and the second group
with 2 treatment modalities such as PDI and APC or clipping. The question
posed by the authors is well defined, the methods are appropriate and the
discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by the
data except for one issue that I will discuss in the revision section.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Line 214 the authors write: “In this study, PDI was shown to be the treatment
of choice”…. This is not a correct statement!!!! The authors can’t state this
because they didn’t compare different ways to treat angioectasia. Need to
changed
2. Authors need to add section on study limitations……
3. Line 236-237 authors need to describe why they think that no statistical
difference was found in between the 2 groups.
Additional minor comments:
1. Line 183, please explain if patients in the study were also had aortic stenosis.
2. Line 187 it will be valuable to know if patients among the 2 groups had
different HVPG levels (if it was tested).
3. Some minor language correction
Declaration of competing interests:
I HAVE NOTHING TO DECLER
Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:6Date:11 May 2015
Reviewer: meir mizrahi
Reviewer's report:
Summary: This is a retrospective study over approximately 800 patients who had
OGIB, of those 238 patients underwent both CE and DBE, of those 77 patients
were excluded due to incomplete small bowel visualization, the rest of the
patients were divided based on the capsule and endoscopic procedure in to 2
groups, angioectasia and non angioectasia groups. The authors sought to
determine factors which may predict the presence of small bowel angiectasia and
which is the best way to treat those angiectasia based on Yano – Yamamoto’s
classification. Patients with angioectasia 1b were further divided in to 2 treatment
groups 1 with single treatment with polidocanol injection and the second group
with 2 treatment modalities such as PDI and APC or clipping. The question
posed by the authors is well defined, the methods are appropriate and the
discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by the
data except for one issue that I will discuss in the revision section.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Line 214 the authors write: “In this study, PDI was shown to be the treatment
of choice”…. This is not a correct statement!!!! The authors can’t state this
because they didn’t compare different ways to treat angioectasia. Need to
changed
2. Authors need to add section on study limitations……
3. Line 236-237 authors need to describe why they think that no statistical
difference was found in between the 2 groups.
Additional minor comments:
1. Line 183, please explain if patients in the study were also had aortic stenosis.
2. Line 187 it will be valuable to know if patients among the 2 groups had
different HVPG levels (if it was tested).
3. Some minor language correction
Declaration of competing interests:
I HAVE NOTHING TO DECLER
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Major predictors and management of small-bowel angioectasia
Version:6Date:11 May 2015
Reviewer: meir mizrahi
Reviewer's report:
Summary: This is a retrospective study over approximately 800 patients who had
OGIB, of those 238 patients underwent both CE and DBE, of those 77 patients
were excluded due to incomplete small bowel visualization, the rest of the
patients were divided based on the capsule and endoscopic procedure in to 2
groups, angioectasia and non angioectasia groups. The authors sought to
determine factors which may predict the presence of small bowel angiectasia and
which is the best way to treat those angiectasia based on Yano – Yamamoto’s
classification. Patients with angioectasia 1b were further divided in to 2 treatment
groups 1 with single treatment with polidocanol injection and the second group
with 2 treatment modalities such as PDI and APC or clipping. The question
posed by the authors is well defined, the methods are appropriate and the
discussion and conclusions are well balanced and adequately supported by the
data except for one issue that I will discuss in the revision section.
Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Line 214 the authors write: “In this study, PDI was shown to be the treatment
of choice”…. This is not a correct statement!!!! The authors can’t state this
because they didn’t compare different ways to treat angioectasia. Need to
changed
2. Authors need to add section on study limitations……
3. Line 236-237 authors need to describe why they think that no statistical
difference was found in between the 2 groups.
Additional minor comments:
1. Line 183, please explain if patients in the study were also had aortic stenosis.
2. Line 187 it will be valuable to know if patients among the 2 groups had
different HVPG levels (if it was tested).
3. Some minor language correction
Declaration of competing interests:
I HAVE NOTHING TO DECLER
assistant