Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:30 June 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesing idea to compare pill cam transit data with magnetic marker
monitoring data. However the scientific quality of the manuscript needs to be
improved .
Major Comments:
1) How can the authors prove that the magnets that were ingested before the
meal passed the small intestine with the meal? At least the gastric emptying
times and the dimentions of the swallowed magnet have to be presented and
carefully discussed (see minor comments). In the submitted version this essential
and critical point is completely ignored.
2) What is the scientific basis for the three motility categories chosen: Fast
movements, slow movements, very slow movements?
3) How can a progeression in cm be calculated when the subjects were not
permanently measured?
4) How can the authors be sure that the calculated progression is movement of
the magnet in the intestine and not movement of the intestines with the pill inside
5) Was one baseline measruement used for the complete recording?
7) The included data are uncomplete. The tables are not supplementary material
but esential (they are also cited in the mansucript).
8) A description of the magnet is completely missing (dimensions, material,
magnetic moment) but essential (see major comments).
9) What data are presented in Table 1? Fasting or fed conditions? All transit data
need be listed.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no ccompeting interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:30 June 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesing idea to compare pill cam transit data with magnetic marker
monitoring data. However the scientific quality of the manuscript needs to be
improved .
Major Comments:
1) How can the authors prove that the magnets that were ingested before the
meal passed the small intestine with the meal? At least the gastric emptying
times and the dimentions of the swallowed magnet have to be presented and
carefully discussed (see minor comments). In the submitted version this essential
and critical point is completely ignored.
2) What is the scientific basis for the three motility categories chosen: Fast
movements, slow movements, very slow movements?
3) How can a progeression in cm be calculated when the subjects were not
permanently measured?
4) How can the authors be sure that the calculated progression is movement of
the magnet in the intestine and not movement of the intestines with the pill inside
5) Was one baseline measruement used for the complete recording?
7) The included data are uncomplete. The tables are not supplementary material
but esential (they are also cited in the mansucript).
8) A description of the magnet is completely missing (dimensions, material,
magnetic moment) but essential (see major comments).
9) What data are presented in Table 1? Fasting or fed conditions? All transit data
need be listed.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no ccompeting interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 1Date:30 June 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
It is an interesing idea to compare pill cam transit data with magnetic marker
monitoring data. However the scientific quality of the manuscript needs to be
improved .
Major Comments:
1) How can the authors prove that the magnets that were ingested before the
meal passed the small intestine with the meal? At least the gastric emptying
times and the dimentions of the swallowed magnet have to be presented and
carefully discussed (see minor comments). In the submitted version this essential
and critical point is completely ignored.
2) What is the scientific basis for the three motility categories chosen: Fast
movements, slow movements, very slow movements?
3) How can a progeression in cm be calculated when the subjects were not
permanently measured?
4) How can the authors be sure that the calculated progression is movement of
the magnet in the intestine and not movement of the intestines with the pill inside
5) Was one baseline measruement used for the complete recording?
7) The included data are uncomplete. The tables are not supplementary material
but esential (they are also cited in the mansucript).
8) A description of the magnet is completely missing (dimensions, material,
magnetic moment) but essential (see major comments).
9) What data are presented in Table 1? Fasting or fed conditions? All transit data
need be listed.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I have no ccompeting interests.
assistant