Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Hiroki Endo
Reviewer's report:
In this randomized controlled study on small number of patients, the authors
concluded that polaprezinc treatment protects against low-dose aspirin-induced
small bowel injury. The manuscript is interesting and well written, however, has
several limitations.
1: It is unclear how the authors define the “low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel
mucoral injuries”. The possibility that the CE findings were not direct results of
aspirin. Neither follow-up CE exams were done after aspirin withdrawl, nor do we
have matched controls with no aspirin. Certainly the findings of the study are
suggestive, but not definitive. We have not histological diagnosis of the lesions
(not all the ulcers of the small bowel are Crohn’s ulcer or aspirin ulcers).
2: How the sample size calculated?
2: The results were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The sample
size was small. It is therefore expected that the data would not be normally
distributed. Therefore, I think that mean and SD may not be appropriate method
to present such data.
3: The concealment of allocation is unclear.
4: Discussion: “In previous studies, no trend was seen in the anatomic
distribution of aspirin-induced small bowel injuries” – Ref. 17 have shown that
aspirin-associated small bowel ulcers tended to be located in the distal part of the
small bowel.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Hiroki Endo
Reviewer's report:
In this randomized controlled study on small number of patients, the authors
concluded that polaprezinc treatment protects against low-dose aspirin-induced
small bowel injury. The manuscript is interesting and well written, however, has
several limitations.
1: It is unclear how the authors define the “low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel
mucoral injuries”. The possibility that the CE findings were not direct results of
aspirin. Neither follow-up CE exams were done after aspirin withdrawl, nor do we
have matched controls with no aspirin. Certainly the findings of the study are
suggestive, but not definitive. We have not histological diagnosis of the lesions
(not all the ulcers of the small bowel are Crohn’s ulcer or aspirin ulcers).
2: How the sample size calculated?
2: The results were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The sample
size was small. It is therefore expected that the data would not be normally
distributed. Therefore, I think that mean and SD may not be appropriate method
to present such data.
3: The concealment of allocation is unclear.
4: Discussion: “In previous studies, no trend was seen in the anatomic
distribution of aspirin-induced small bowel injuries” – Ref. 17 have shown that
aspirin-associated small bowel ulcers tended to be located in the distal part of the
small bowel.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Hiroki Endo
Reviewer's report:
In this randomized controlled study on small number of patients, the authors
concluded that polaprezinc treatment protects against low-dose aspirin-induced
small bowel injury. The manuscript is interesting and well written, however, has
several limitations.
1: It is unclear how the authors define the “low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel
mucoral injuries”. The possibility that the CE findings were not direct results of
aspirin. Neither follow-up CE exams were done after aspirin withdrawl, nor do we
have matched controls with no aspirin. Certainly the findings of the study are
suggestive, but not definitive. We have not histological diagnosis of the lesions
(not all the ulcers of the small bowel are Crohn’s ulcer or aspirin ulcers).
2: How the sample size calculated?
2: The results were presented as the mean and standard deviation. The sample
size was small. It is therefore expected that the data would not be normally
distributed. Therefore, I think that mean and SD may not be appropriate method
to present such data.
3: The concealment of allocation is unclear.
4: Discussion: “In previous studies, no trend was seen in the anatomic
distribution of aspirin-induced small bowel injuries” – Ref. 17 have shown that
aspirin-associated small bowel ulcers tended to be located in the distal part of the
small bowel.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant