Title: Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy in One-time Gastro-small Intestinal Joint
Examination: A Two-centre Experience
Version: 2 Date: 05 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Nazri Mustaffa
Reviewer's report:
An interesting paper that explores the utility of a combined stomach-small intestine magnetically
controllable capsule endoscopy (MCE) examination.
A major issue that needs to be clarified is whether MCE itself is already an accepted standard-
of-care examination modality. The references quoted refer to MCE as an experimental modality
(feasibility and safety etc). The authors indicate that they have received ethical approval for this
retrospective study on subjects who have had both stomach and small intestine MCE performed.
However, the fact remains if the subjects had initially consented for an MCE procedure that will
observe BOTH stomach and the small intestine in one procedure. As the authors pointed out,
observing both the stomach and small intestine has not been discussed well in the literature; thus,
performing a simultaneous stomach and small bowel examination using MCE would itself be
deemed as an experimental procedure and would need informed consent from potential subjects,
something that is not highlighted in this paper.
Some other points to highlight:
1. The title describes a joint stomach-small intestinal MCE procedure, but in the results, there
is mention of oesophagitis and diverticulitis, which do not fit in the scope of the title.
2. The opening statement of the abstract is confusing: "The diseases distributed in the both
stomach and small intestine are commonly seen..." What do the authors mean?
3. Grammar/sentence structure issues abound. In the abstract for example: "...strategy of
gastroscopy followed enteroscopy...". Many more errors are present. In the abstract conclusion
"in the one time" should be replaced with "simultaneously". Do the authors mean "wasteful"
instead of "wistful", "satisfactory" instead of "satisfied"?
4. Study procedures should be described in the past tense and standardised throughout the paper.
5. "Consecutive participants referred for MCE in two centers from January 2020 to August
2021 were retrospectively enrolled". The terms "participants" and "enrolled" denote active
involvement/recruitment into the study, may not be so appropriate for use as this is a
retrospective study.
5. "Success rate of small intestinal examination was 97.40%, with MCE failed to reach the
caecum in 20 participants". However, capsule retention only occurred in 2 subjects?
6. The paper is very lengthy as the authors describe in detail each component of the study.
To increase readability, suggest focusing only on specific results in the paper, the rest can be
referred to in the attached table.
7. Figure legend: "(l) Small eneritis"
8. Table headings: GSI or GSI joint examination? Please standardise
Title: Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy in One-time Gastro-small Intestinal Joint
Examination: A Two-centre Experience
Version: 2 Date: 05 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Nazri Mustaffa
Reviewer's report:
An interesting paper that explores the utility of a combined stomach-small intestine magnetically
controllable capsule endoscopy (MCE) examination.
A major issue that needs to be clarified is whether MCE itself is already an accepted standard-
of-care examination modality. The references quoted refer to MCE as an experimental modality
(feasibility and safety etc). The authors indicate that they have received ethical approval for this
retrospective study on subjects who have had both stomach and small intestine MCE performed.
However, the fact remains if the subjects had initially consented for an MCE procedure that will
observe BOTH stomach and the small intestine in one procedure. As the authors pointed out,
observing both the stomach and small intestine has not been discussed well in the literature; thus,
performing a simultaneous stomach and small bowel examination using MCE would itself be
deemed as an experimental procedure and would need informed consent from potential subjects,
something that is not highlighted in this paper.
Some other points to highlight:
1. The title describes a joint stomach-small intestinal MCE procedure, but in the results, there
is mention of oesophagitis and diverticulitis, which do not fit in the scope of the title.
2. The opening statement of the abstract is confusing: "The diseases distributed in the both
stomach and small intestine are commonly seen..." What do the authors mean?
3. Grammar/sentence structure issues abound. In the abstract for example: "...strategy of
gastroscopy followed enteroscopy...". Many more errors are present. In the abstract conclusion
"in the one time" should be replaced with "simultaneously". Do the authors mean "wasteful"
instead of "wistful", "satisfactory" instead of "satisfied"?
4. Study procedures should be described in the past tense and standardised throughout the paper.
5. "Consecutive participants referred for MCE in two centers from January 2020 to August
2021 were retrospectively enrolled". The terms "participants" and "enrolled" denote active
involvement/recruitment into the study, may not be so appropriate for use as this is a
retrospective study.
5. "Success rate of small intestinal examination was 97.40%, with MCE failed to reach the
caecum in 20 participants". However, capsule retention only occurred in 2 subjects?
6. The paper is very lengthy as the authors describe in detail each component of the study.
To increase readability, suggest focusing only on specific results in the paper, the rest can be
referred to in the attached table.
7. Figure legend: "(l) Small eneritis"
8. Table headings: GSI or GSI joint examination? Please standardise
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Magnetically Controlled Capsule Endoscopy in One-time Gastro-small Intestinal Joint
Examination: A Two-centre Experience
Version: 2 Date: 05 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Nazri Mustaffa
Reviewer's report:
An interesting paper that explores the utility of a combined stomach-small intestine magnetically
controllable capsule endoscopy (MCE) examination.
A major issue that needs to be clarified is whether MCE itself is already an accepted standard-
of-care examination modality. The references quoted refer to MCE as an experimental modality
(feasibility and safety etc). The authors indicate that they have received ethical approval for this
retrospective study on subjects who have had both stomach and small intestine MCE performed.
However, the fact remains if the subjects had initially consented for an MCE procedure that will
observe BOTH stomach and the small intestine in one procedure. As the authors pointed out,
observing both the stomach and small intestine has not been discussed well in the literature; thus,
performing a simultaneous stomach and small bowel examination using MCE would itself be
deemed as an experimental procedure and would need informed consent from potential subjects,
something that is not highlighted in this paper.
Some other points to highlight:
1. The title describes a joint stomach-small intestinal MCE procedure, but in the results, there
is mention of oesophagitis and diverticulitis, which do not fit in the scope of the title.
2. The opening statement of the abstract is confusing: "The diseases distributed in the both
stomach and small intestine are commonly seen..." What do the authors mean?
3. Grammar/sentence structure issues abound. In the abstract for example: "...strategy of
gastroscopy followed enteroscopy...". Many more errors are present. In the abstract conclusion
"in the one time" should be replaced with "simultaneously". Do the authors mean "wasteful"
instead of "wistful", "satisfactory" instead of "satisfied"?
4. Study procedures should be described in the past tense and standardised throughout the paper.
5. "Consecutive participants referred for MCE in two centers from January 2020 to August
2021 were retrospectively enrolled". The terms "participants" and "enrolled" denote active
involvement/recruitment into the study, may not be so appropriate for use as this is a
retrospective study.
5. "Success rate of small intestinal examination was 97.40%, with MCE failed to reach the
caecum in 20 participants". However, capsule retention only occurred in 2 subjects?
6. The paper is very lengthy as the authors describe in detail each component of the study.
To increase readability, suggest focusing only on specific results in the paper, the rest can be
referred to in the attached table.
7. Figure legend: "(l) Small eneritis"
8. Table headings: GSI or GSI joint examination? Please standardise
assistant