Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: An innovative fast track solution for food bolus impaction du e to Jackhammer esophagus 
in an emergency department: the "Nitro -Push Blind Technique" case report.  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jun 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Ross  Hansen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a clinically relevant and interesting case study with potential to advance the management 
of food bolus obstruction. The following comments  and suggestions should improve the 
manuscript.  
1. Page 4, etc please spell dysmotility (not dismotility).  
2. Page 5, more details of the patient's history would be helpful if possible, such as the frequency 
of previous bolus impactions, and how recent, h ow many in past 12 months, etc.  
3. Page 6, lines 21 & 22 would read better as: "steakhouse syndrome" has infrequently been 
associated with esophageal motility disorders....  
4. Page 6, line 23: estimated incidence (not esteemed).  
5. Page 7, line 16: suggest ive of ... (rather than 'significant for').  
6. Page 8, line 10: was a safe ... (rather than 'represents' a safe ...). As this is a single case report, 
I believe it is important to be cautious with the wording here; I'm sure the authors would not 
wish to be  seen to be extrapolating too much to other patients without, as they acknowledge, 
further research and validation. Hence in line 12 I suggest it "may" be recommended (rather than 
"should" be ...).  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language correcti ons before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: An innovative fast track solution for food bolus impaction du e to Jackhammer esophagus 
in an emergency department: the "Nitro -Push Blind Technique" case report.  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jun 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Ross  Hansen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a clinically relevant and interesting case study with potential to advance the management 
of food bolus obstruction. The following comments  and suggestions should improve the 
manuscript.  
1. Page 4, etc please spell dysmotility (not dismotility).  
2. Page 5, more details of the patient's history would be helpful if possible, such as the frequency 
of previous bolus impactions, and how recent, h ow many in past 12 months, etc.  
3. Page 6, lines 21 & 22 would read better as: "steakhouse syndrome" has infrequently been 
associated with esophageal motility disorders....  
4. Page 6, line 23: estimated incidence (not esteemed).  
5. Page 7, line 16: suggest ive of ... (rather than 'significant for').  
6. Page 8, line 10: was a safe ... (rather than 'represents' a safe ...). As this is a single case report, 
I believe it is important to be cautious with the wording here; I'm sure the authors would not 
wish to be  seen to be extrapolating too much to other patients without, as they acknowledge, 
further research and validation. Hence in line 12 I suggest it "may" be recommended (rather than 
"should" be ...).  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language correcti ons before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: An innovative fast track solution for food bolus impaction du e to Jackhammer esophagus 
in an emergency department: the "Nitro -Push Blind Technique" case report.  
 
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jun 2016  
 
 
Reviewer: Ross  Hansen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is a clinically relevant and interesting case study with potential to advance the management 
of food bolus obstruction. The following comments  and suggestions should improve the 
manuscript.  
1. Page 4, etc please spell dysmotility (not dismotility).  
2. Page 5, more details of the patient's history would be helpful if possible, such as the frequency 
of previous bolus impactions, and how recent, h ow many in past 12 months, etc.  
3. Page 6, lines 21 & 22 would read better as: "steakhouse syndrome" has infrequently been 
associated with esophageal motility disorders....  
4. Page 6, line 23: estimated incidence (not esteemed).  
5. Page 7, line 16: suggest ive of ... (rather than 'significant for').  
6. Page 8, line 10: was a safe ... (rather than 'represents' a safe ...). As this is a single case report, 
I believe it is important to be cautious with the wording here; I'm sure the authors would not 
wish to be  seen to be extrapolating too much to other patients without, as they acknowledge, 
further research and validation. Hence in line 12 I suggest it "may" be recommended (rather than 
"should" be ...).  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supporte d by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please spe cify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language correcti ons before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please comp lete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from 
an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of t his 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently apply ing for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is y es to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests . 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand th at any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant