Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 2 Date: 12 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for CD
lesions in the whole GI tract. Study design comparing between the lesions of PCCE and DBE
is considered excellent. However, I am concern about some points with regard to the way of
evaluation.
Major problem
1. Is the primary evaluation point whether there are lesions or not in one segment? In the cases
that there are several lesions in one segment, how did you evaluate the diagnostic yield? As you
conduct DBE as the gold standard, I think it is better to consider the correlation with CECDAI
or Lewis score. Is it possible to compare the findings of DBE and PCCE-2 with the regard to
CECDAI or Lewis score?
Minor problem
1. PCCE-2 is conducted after oral approach DBE which occasionally injure the mucosa. Is not
it necessary to consider the mucosa damage caused by oral approach DBE?
2. Sometimes it is difficult to observe total GI tract by DBE for the patients with CD who received
the intestinal resection. Is the fluoroscopy sufficient as the criteria of observation for the entire
gastrointestinal tract? Is not the marking clip necessary as the criteria?
3. I think that the observation rate (75%) of PCCE-2 for the whole large intestine is low in spite
of the colon capsule endoscopy, though you state that PCCE is able to observe the whole GI
tract. Is the PCCE-2 useful for the observation of the whole GI tract in the patients with CD? Is
not it necessary to conduct lower GI endoscope? How long does the battery of PCCE-2 last?
4. It would be better to write down the names of two readers of capsule endoscopy in the author
contribution.
5. In the Montreol criteria, L2 is the large intestine, while L3 is the small and large intestine. Is
not L2 and L3 in the table2 defined by the Montreol criteria?
Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 2 Date: 12 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for CD
lesions in the whole GI tract. Study design comparing between the lesions of PCCE and DBE
is considered excellent. However, I am concern about some points with regard to the way of
evaluation.
Major problem
1. Is the primary evaluation point whether there are lesions or not in one segment? In the cases
that there are several lesions in one segment, how did you evaluate the diagnostic yield? As you
conduct DBE as the gold standard, I think it is better to consider the correlation with CECDAI
or Lewis score. Is it possible to compare the findings of DBE and PCCE-2 with the regard to
CECDAI or Lewis score?
Minor problem
1. PCCE-2 is conducted after oral approach DBE which occasionally injure the mucosa. Is not
it necessary to consider the mucosa damage caused by oral approach DBE?
2. Sometimes it is difficult to observe total GI tract by DBE for the patients with CD who received
the intestinal resection. Is the fluoroscopy sufficient as the criteria of observation for the entire
gastrointestinal tract? Is not the marking clip necessary as the criteria?
3. I think that the observation rate (75%) of PCCE-2 for the whole large intestine is low in spite
of the colon capsule endoscopy, though you state that PCCE is able to observe the whole GI
tract. Is the PCCE-2 useful for the observation of the whole GI tract in the patients with CD? Is
not it necessary to conduct lower GI endoscope? How long does the battery of PCCE-2 last?
4. It would be better to write down the names of two readers of capsule endoscopy in the author
contribution.
5. In the Montreol criteria, L2 is the large intestine, while L3 is the small and large intestine. Is
not L2 and L3 in the table2 defined by the Montreol criteria?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for Crohn’s disease lesions in the whole
gastrointestinal tract
Version: 2 Date: 12 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of colon capsule endoscopy for CD
lesions in the whole GI tract. Study design comparing between the lesions of PCCE and DBE
is considered excellent. However, I am concern about some points with regard to the way of
evaluation.
Major problem
1. Is the primary evaluation point whether there are lesions or not in one segment? In the cases
that there are several lesions in one segment, how did you evaluate the diagnostic yield? As you
conduct DBE as the gold standard, I think it is better to consider the correlation with CECDAI
or Lewis score. Is it possible to compare the findings of DBE and PCCE-2 with the regard to
CECDAI or Lewis score?
Minor problem
1. PCCE-2 is conducted after oral approach DBE which occasionally injure the mucosa. Is not
it necessary to consider the mucosa damage caused by oral approach DBE?
2. Sometimes it is difficult to observe total GI tract by DBE for the patients with CD who received
the intestinal resection. Is the fluoroscopy sufficient as the criteria of observation for the entire
gastrointestinal tract? Is not the marking clip necessary as the criteria?
3. I think that the observation rate (75%) of PCCE-2 for the whole large intestine is low in spite
of the colon capsule endoscopy, though you state that PCCE is able to observe the whole GI
tract. Is the PCCE-2 useful for the observation of the whole GI tract in the patients with CD? Is
not it necessary to conduct lower GI endoscope? How long does the battery of PCCE-2 last?
4. It would be better to write down the names of two readers of capsule endoscopy in the author
contribution.
5. In the Montreol criteria, L2 is the large intestine, while L3 is the small and large intestine. Is
not L2 and L3 in the table2 defined by the Montreol criteria?
assistant