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: 6Date:11 May 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors appropriately replied to my suggestion, and the reviewer believes
the manuscript has been improved. However, The reviewer has some minor
criticisms described below.
Minor essential revisions
The reviewer still finds some grammatical errors in the revised manuscript.
P4, line 11. “polaprezinc is commonly used in the treatment ~” should be
changed into “~commonly used for~.”
P6, line 9. “All patients screened for inclusion in the study provided written
informed conset~” should be “All patients screened for inclusion in the study were
provided~.”
P8 , line 4. “Another” should be changed into “any other.”
The authors should carefully check their revised manuscript again.
Numbers of erosions/ulcers of both polaprezinc and control groups described in
Table 1 are different from those in Figure 3. Which result is true?
The description of references No 8, 22, and 29 should be concordantly
described.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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.
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: 6Date:11 May 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors appropriately replied to my suggestion, and the reviewer believes
the manuscript has been improved. However, The reviewer has some minor
criticisms described below.
Minor essential revisions
The reviewer still finds some grammatical errors in the revised manuscript.
P4, line 11. “polaprezinc is commonly used in the treatment ~” should be
changed into “~commonly used for~.”
P6, line 9. “All patients screened for inclusion in the study provided written
informed conset~” should be “All patients screened for inclusion in the study were
provided~.”
P8 , line 4. “Another” should be changed into “any other.”
The authors should carefully check their revised manuscript again.
Numbers of erosions/ulcers of both polaprezinc and control groups described in
Table 1 are different from those in Figure 3. Which result is true?
The description of references No 8, 22, and 29 should be concordantly
described.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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.
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: 6Date:11 May 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors appropriately replied to my suggestion, and the reviewer believes
the manuscript has been improved. However, The reviewer has some minor
criticisms described below.
Minor essential revisions
The reviewer still finds some grammatical errors in the revised manuscript.
P4, line 11. “polaprezinc is commonly used in the treatment ~” should be
changed into “~commonly used for~.”
P6, line 9. “All patients screened for inclusion in the study provided written
informed conset~” should be “All patients screened for inclusion in the study were
provided~.”
P8 , line 4. “Another” should be changed into “any other.”
The authors should carefully check their revised manuscript again.
Numbers of erosions/ulcers of both polaprezinc and control groups described in
Table 1 are different from those in Figure 3. Which result is true?
The description of references No 8, 22, and 29 should be concordantly
described.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant