Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Utility and Tolerability of JSPH-1 Wireless Esophageal pH
Monitoring System
Version: 3Date:16 September 2012
Reviewer: Georgios Karamanolis
Reviewer's report:
Jun-Nan Li et al conducted a clinical study to evaluate safety, tolerance and
clinical utility of a new Chinese wireless esophageal pH capsule. They concluded
that this new capsule is well tolerated and increased the yield of GERD
diagnosis.
1. There no clear inclusion criteria; patients with suspected or defined GERD,
patients who failed PPI therapy or without any therapy. What type of symptoms
did they have? How many patients had typical or atypical GERD symptoms? Do
they use a definition for GERD? Had the patients a previous endoscopy or only
prior the capsule attachment?
2. Why did they place the capsule 5 cm above SGJ and not 6 cm as the Bravo
system?
3. It is not clear what type of symptoms and with which method do they measure
the patients’ complaints. Do they use a Likert scale, numerous scales or
something else?
4. Why there was a long follow-up period for complications after capsule
detachment.
5. The meaning of the second phrase in the 1st paragraph of data analysis is not
very clear.
6. In data analysis for GERD definition the authors use DeMeester score and/ or
SI. It should be clarified.
7. 6 line, results: what the meaning of major patients
8. 8 line, results: How many patients referred foreign body sense and for long did
it last in those patients.
9. 14 line, results: which is the meaning of the phrase: no one……..during
detachment.
10. Paragraph 2, results: This is a very confused and difficult to understand
paragraph and should be clarified.
11. Is not clear if patients with SI (+) are the same with those with abnormal pH
or not.
12. 1st phrase in the last paragraph of results has already been mentioned
before and should be omitted.
13. It should be helpful to make an extra analysis for patients with typical and
atypical symptoms and abnormal pH monitoring.
14. Discussion should be shortened and should be focused on paper’s result and
a comparison to Bravo system.
15. The paper should be corrected for the language.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Utility and Tolerability of JSPH-1 Wireless Esophageal pH
Monitoring System
Version: 3Date:16 September 2012
Reviewer: Georgios Karamanolis
Reviewer's report:
Jun-Nan Li et al conducted a clinical study to evaluate safety, tolerance and
clinical utility of a new Chinese wireless esophageal pH capsule. They concluded
that this new capsule is well tolerated and increased the yield of GERD
diagnosis.
1. There no clear inclusion criteria; patients with suspected or defined GERD,
patients who failed PPI therapy or without any therapy. What type of symptoms
did they have? How many patients had typical or atypical GERD symptoms? Do
they use a definition for GERD? Had the patients a previous endoscopy or only
prior the capsule attachment?
2. Why did they place the capsule 5 cm above SGJ and not 6 cm as the Bravo
system?
3. It is not clear what type of symptoms and with which method do they measure
the patients’ complaints. Do they use a Likert scale, numerous scales or
something else?
4. Why there was a long follow-up period for complications after capsule
detachment.
5. The meaning of the second phrase in the 1st paragraph of data analysis is not
very clear.
6. In data analysis for GERD definition the authors use DeMeester score and/ or
SI. It should be clarified.
7. 6 line, results: what the meaning of major patients
8. 8 line, results: How many patients referred foreign body sense and for long did
it last in those patients.
9. 14 line, results: which is the meaning of the phrase: no one……..during
detachment.
10. Paragraph 2, results: This is a very confused and difficult to understand
paragraph and should be clarified.
11. Is not clear if patients with SI (+) are the same with those with abnormal pH
or not.
12. 1st phrase in the last paragraph of results has already been mentioned
before and should be omitted.
13. It should be helpful to make an extra analysis for patients with typical and
atypical symptoms and abnormal pH monitoring.
14. Discussion should be shortened and should be focused on paper’s result and
a comparison to Bravo system.
15. The paper should be corrected for the language.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Clinical Utility and Tolerability of JSPH-1 Wireless Esophageal pH
Monitoring System
Version: 3Date:16 September 2012
Reviewer: Georgios Karamanolis
Reviewer's report:
Jun-Nan Li et al conducted a clinical study to evaluate safety, tolerance and
clinical utility of a new Chinese wireless esophageal pH capsule. They concluded
that this new capsule is well tolerated and increased the yield of GERD
diagnosis.
1. There no clear inclusion criteria; patients with suspected or defined GERD,
patients who failed PPI therapy or without any therapy. What type of symptoms
did they have? How many patients had typical or atypical GERD symptoms? Do
they use a definition for GERD? Had the patients a previous endoscopy or only
prior the capsule attachment?
2. Why did they place the capsule 5 cm above SGJ and not 6 cm as the Bravo
system?
3. It is not clear what type of symptoms and with which method do they measure
the patients’ complaints. Do they use a Likert scale, numerous scales or
something else?
4. Why there was a long follow-up period for complications after capsule
detachment.
5. The meaning of the second phrase in the 1st paragraph of data analysis is not
very clear.
6. In data analysis for GERD definition the authors use DeMeester score and/ or
SI. It should be clarified.
7. 6 line, results: what the meaning of major patients
8. 8 line, results: How many patients referred foreign body sense and for long did
it last in those patients.
9. 14 line, results: which is the meaning of the phrase: no one……..during
detachment.
10. Paragraph 2, results: This is a very confused and difficult to understand
paragraph and should be clarified.
11. Is not clear if patients with SI (+) are the same with those with abnormal pH
or not.
12. 1st phrase in the last paragraph of results has already been mentioned
before and should be omitted.
13. It should be helpful to make an extra analysis for patients with typical and
atypical symptoms and abnormal pH monitoring.
14. Discussion should be shortened and should be focused on paper’s result and
a comparison to Bravo system.
15. The paper should be corrected for the language.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
assistant