Reviewer's report
Title:Multicenter study about hemorrhagic risk of heparin bridging therapy for
periendoscopic thromboprophylaxis
Version:2Date:21 February 2015
Reviewer: Hung Hung-Hsu
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
1. In the material and methods, the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be
clarified. If you can make a study flow chart to demonstrate how you enrolled and
exclude the patients, it would be better and clearer for the article.
2. In Table 3, factors with a p value < 0.5 in the univariate analysis were further
assessed in multivariate analysis. However, the factors usually < 0.05 were
enrolled in the multivariate analysis. Please clarify it.
3. In page 11, the limitation and strength of the article may be re-written. The
limitations included retrospective study, study by questionnaire, and not all
endoscopic interventions enrolled (For example, no ERCP and PEG). The
strengths of the study included large scale, nationwide, combine upper and low
gastrointestinal scopes, and new idea emphasized on bleeding risk of HBT.
Minor comments
1. In page 6 , line 3, “ undergo therapeutic endoscopyFinally,” should be
“undergo therapeutic endoscopy. Finally,”
2. The title of Table 1 may be revised as “Demographic data in the study”.
3. In table 1, the words in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, columns , like anticoagulants ,
antiplatelets, should be moved in the 1st column.
4. All the vertical lines in the tables should be removed. Only three horizontal
lines in the table , 1st, 2nd and last, should be remained and removed all the
others.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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:Multicenter study about hemorrhagic risk of heparin bridging therapy for
periendoscopic thromboprophylaxis
Version:2Date:21 February 2015
Reviewer: Hung Hung-Hsu
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
1. In the material and methods, the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be
clarified. If you can make a study flow chart to demonstrate how you enrolled and
exclude the patients, it would be better and clearer for the article.
2. In Table 3, factors with a p value < 0.5 in the univariate analysis were further
assessed in multivariate analysis. However, the factors usually < 0.05 were
enrolled in the multivariate analysis. Please clarify it.
3. In page 11, the limitation and strength of the article may be re-written. The
limitations included retrospective study, study by questionnaire, and not all
endoscopic interventions enrolled (For example, no ERCP and PEG). The
strengths of the study included large scale, nationwide, combine upper and low
gastrointestinal scopes, and new idea emphasized on bleeding risk of HBT.
Minor comments
1. In page 6 , line 3, “ undergo therapeutic endoscopyFinally,” should be
“undergo therapeutic endoscopy. Finally,”
2. The title of Table 1 may be revised as “Demographic data in the study”.
3. In table 1, the words in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, columns , like anticoagulants ,
antiplatelets, should be moved in the 1st column.
4. All the vertical lines in the tables should be removed. Only three horizontal
lines in the table , 1st, 2nd and last, should be remained and removed all the
others.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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:Multicenter study about hemorrhagic risk of heparin bridging therapy for
periendoscopic thromboprophylaxis
Version:2Date:21 February 2015
Reviewer: Hung Hung-Hsu
Reviewer's report:
Major comments:
1. In the material and methods, the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be
clarified. If you can make a study flow chart to demonstrate how you enrolled and
exclude the patients, it would be better and clearer for the article.
2. In Table 3, factors with a p value < 0.5 in the univariate analysis were further
assessed in multivariate analysis. However, the factors usually < 0.05 were
enrolled in the multivariate analysis. Please clarify it.
3. In page 11, the limitation and strength of the article may be re-written. The
limitations included retrospective study, study by questionnaire, and not all
endoscopic interventions enrolled (For example, no ERCP and PEG). The
strengths of the study included large scale, nationwide, combine upper and low
gastrointestinal scopes, and new idea emphasized on bleeding risk of HBT.
Minor comments
1. In page 6 , line 3, “ undergo therapeutic endoscopyFinally,” should be
“undergo therapeutic endoscopy. Finally,”
2. The title of Table 1 may be revised as “Demographic data in the study”.
3. In table 1, the words in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, columns , like anticoagulants ,
antiplatelets, should be moved in the 1st column.
4. All the vertical lines in the tables should be removed. Only three horizontal
lines in the table , 1st, 2nd and last, should be remained and removed all the
others.
Level of interest: An article of importance 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