Reviewer's report
Title:Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral
esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2Date:22 April 2010
Reviewer: Atsuhiko Murata
Reviewer's report:
The theme of this paper is unique and interesting. I think that the finding can
contribute to the accurate measurement of distance in transnasal
esophagogastrodueodenoscopy.
However, some revisions are required. Please consider the following points.
(Major compulsory revisions)
1. Authors used the words “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” and “gastroscopy” in
this
paper. Authors should use the word either “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” or
“gastroscopy”. Furthermore, “EGD” should be used as abbreviation if you use
“esophagogastroduodenoscopy” rather than “gastroscopy”.
2. Did the patients undergo both the transoral gastroscopy (TOG) and transnasal
gastroscopy (TNG) in same day?
3. What is the meaning of the measuring the patient’s height?
4. Authors showed the significant difference between TOG and TNG with regard
to the
distance to the cardia (Figure 1). I recommend that authors show the p value and
statistical methods such as Mann-Whitney U-test or Student’s t test. By showing
this,
authors’ hypothesis (fourth paragraph in the Introduction (page 4, lines 10)) can
be
reasonably validated.
5. To highlight the significance of the findings in this paper, authors should
describe about the application to clinical endoscopy (e.g. the accurate
measurement of distance in esophageal diseases).
(Minor essential revisions)
1. Authors should add the regression equation to Figure legends (Figure 2).
(Discretionary revisions)
1. Introduction of this paper seems to be too long. I think that authors had better
delete the first paragraph in Introduction and start from the second paragraph
because the content of first paragraph is irrelevant to the theme of this paper.
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral
esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2Date:22 April 2010
Reviewer: Atsuhiko Murata
Reviewer's report:
The theme of this paper is unique and interesting. I think that the finding can
contribute to the accurate measurement of distance in transnasal
esophagogastrodueodenoscopy.
However, some revisions are required. Please consider the following points.
(Major compulsory revisions)
1. Authors used the words “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” and “gastroscopy” in
this
paper. Authors should use the word either “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” or
“gastroscopy”. Furthermore, “EGD” should be used as abbreviation if you use
“esophagogastroduodenoscopy” rather than “gastroscopy”.
2. Did the patients undergo both the transoral gastroscopy (TOG) and transnasal
gastroscopy (TNG) in same day?
3. What is the meaning of the measuring the patient’s height?
4. Authors showed the significant difference between TOG and TNG with regard
to the
distance to the cardia (Figure 1). I recommend that authors show the p value and
statistical methods such as Mann-Whitney U-test or Student’s t test. By showing
this,
authors’ hypothesis (fourth paragraph in the Introduction (page 4, lines 10)) can
be
reasonably validated.
5. To highlight the significance of the findings in this paper, authors should
describe about the application to clinical endoscopy (e.g. the accurate
measurement of distance in esophageal diseases).
(Minor essential revisions)
1. Authors should add the regression equation to Figure legends (Figure 2).
(Discretionary revisions)
1. Introduction of this paper seems to be too long. I think that authors had better
delete the first paragraph in Introduction and start from the second paragraph
because the content of first paragraph is irrelevant to the theme of this paper.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral
esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Version: 2Date:22 April 2010
Reviewer: Atsuhiko Murata
Reviewer's report:
The theme of this paper is unique and interesting. I think that the finding can
contribute to the accurate measurement of distance in transnasal
esophagogastrodueodenoscopy.
However, some revisions are required. Please consider the following points.
(Major compulsory revisions)
1. Authors used the words “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” and “gastroscopy” in
this
paper. Authors should use the word either “esophagogastroduodenoscopy” or
“gastroscopy”. Furthermore, “EGD” should be used as abbreviation if you use
“esophagogastroduodenoscopy” rather than “gastroscopy”.
2. Did the patients undergo both the transoral gastroscopy (TOG) and transnasal
gastroscopy (TNG) in same day?
3. What is the meaning of the measuring the patient’s height?
4. Authors showed the significant difference between TOG and TNG with regard
to the
distance to the cardia (Figure 1). I recommend that authors show the p value and
statistical methods such as Mann-Whitney U-test or Student’s t test. By showing
this,
authors’ hypothesis (fourth paragraph in the Introduction (page 4, lines 10)) can
be
reasonably validated.
5. To highlight the significance of the findings in this paper, authors should
describe about the application to clinical endoscopy (e.g. the accurate
measurement of distance in esophageal diseases).
(Minor essential revisions)
1. Authors should add the regression equation to Figure legends (Figure 2).
(Discretionary revisions)
1. Introduction of this paper seems to be too long. I think that authors had better
delete the first paragraph in Introduction and start from the second paragraph
because the content of first paragraph is irrelevant to the theme of this paper.
assistant