Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Colonic transendoscopic tube -delivered enteral therapy (with video): A pr ospective study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear obje ctive?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
 
INTERP RETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend t he work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE 
MANUSCRIPT   
  
 Yes the changes have markedly clarified this submission  
  
 
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT    
 
 This technique paper is superb on explaining how to pla ce and maintain both the position and 
the lack of occlusion of the TET. Well done!!!! this is a potentially very important paper.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE  
 
 1. Line 24 WELL DONE. THIS NOW IS CLEAR!!! !!! 
 
 2. Line 31 change "totally" to " In total"  
 
 3. Line 120 what do you mean by "disposable"  
 
Are you using dissolvable clips or the routine metal clips?  
 
 4. Line 109 why not add the phrase " which is at the end of the TET which will be the most 
proximal s ite in the colon" after the word "station"  
 
 5. Line 146 -147 should you refer to the literature report by Long C et al in your response #13 to 
my prior review?  
 
6. Line 237 do you mean " There was no tube obstruction when the tube was flushed actively 
after administration of the drugs or the microbiota/FMT solutions" this is worded better  
 
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 supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qua lity of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publicati on of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying 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 decla re that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for  reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded 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: Colonic transendoscopic tube -delivered enteral therapy (with video): A pr ospective study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear obje ctive?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
 
INTERP RETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend t he work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE 
MANUSCRIPT   
  
 Yes the changes have markedly clarified this submission  
  
 
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT    
 
 This technique paper is superb on explaining how to pla ce and maintain both the position and 
the lack of occlusion of the TET. Well done!!!! this is a potentially very important paper.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE  
 
 1. Line 24 WELL DONE. THIS NOW IS CLEAR!!! !!! 
 
 2. Line 31 change "totally" to " In total"  
 
 3. Line 120 what do you mean by "disposable"  
 
Are you using dissolvable clips or the routine metal clips?  
 
 4. Line 109 why not add the phrase " which is at the end of the TET which will be the most 
proximal s ite in the colon" after the word "station"  
 
 5. Line 146 -147 should you refer to the literature report by Long C et al in your response #13 to 
my prior review?  
 
6. Line 237 do you mean " There was no tube obstruction when the tube was flushed actively 
after administration of the drugs or the microbiota/FMT solutions" this is worded better  
 
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 supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qua lity of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publicati on of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying 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 decla re that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for  reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded 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: Colonic transendoscopic tube -delivered enteral therapy (with video): A pr ospective study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 24 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear obje ctive?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
 
INTERP RETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend t he work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE 
MANUSCRIPT   
  
 Yes the changes have markedly clarified this submission  
  
 
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT    
 
 This technique paper is superb on explaining how to pla ce and maintain both the position and 
the lack of occlusion of the TET. Well done!!!! this is a potentially very important paper.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE  
 
 1. Line 24 WELL DONE. THIS NOW IS CLEAR!!! !!! 
 
 2. Line 31 change "totally" to " In total"  
 
 3. Line 120 what do you mean by "disposable"  
 
Are you using dissolvable clips or the routine metal clips?  
 
 4. Line 109 why not add the phrase " which is at the end of the TET which will be the most 
proximal s ite in the colon" after the word "station"  
 
 5. Line 146 -147 should you refer to the literature report by Long C et al in your response #13 to 
my prior review?  
 
6. Line 237 do you mean " There was no tube obstruction when the tube was flushed actively 
after administration of the drugs or the microbiota/FMT solutions" this is worded better  
 
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 supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qua lity of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salar y 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publicati on of this manuscript, either now or in the 
future?  
 
3.  Do you hold or are you currently applying 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 decla re that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for  reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my  report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access C reative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant