Title: Remimazolam for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: real-life, single
center observational study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper is very difficult to read, especially the methods section. I think that a complete review
of the paper, either from a linguistic or a "organisational" point of view is essential. I therefore
suggest deeply revising the paper before a new submission.
- It is not clear which was the target desired for procedural sedation (deep sedation?). 6/25
patients needed propofol "rescue" administration during EGDS; this proportion of failures seems
quite high for "standard" EGDS, especially considering that in most centers propofol is not used
by the endoscopists and that midazolam is usually used with success as a single agent for EGDS.
- Methods section is very confusing and difficult to read and requires a complete revision
- It is stated that the target study population was 100 patients. First of all, it is not well explained
how was the ideal study population calculated. Secondly, only 73 patients were finally enrolled,
why?
- A clear definition of inclusion criteria is missing. The period of study is not reported; it is
not completely clear if the enrolled patients were consecutive random patients referred to your
center in a certain time frame
- The reported long recovery time should be better clarified
Title: Remimazolam for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: real-life, single
center observational study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper is very difficult to read, especially the methods section. I think that a complete review
of the paper, either from a linguistic or a "organisational" point of view is essential. I therefore
suggest deeply revising the paper before a new submission.
- It is not clear which was the target desired for procedural sedation (deep sedation?). 6/25
patients needed propofol "rescue" administration during EGDS; this proportion of failures seems
quite high for "standard" EGDS, especially considering that in most centers propofol is not used
by the endoscopists and that midazolam is usually used with success as a single agent for EGDS.
- Methods section is very confusing and difficult to read and requires a complete revision
- It is stated that the target study population was 100 patients. First of all, it is not well explained
how was the ideal study population calculated. Secondly, only 73 patients were finally enrolled,
why?
- A clear definition of inclusion criteria is missing. The period of study is not reported; it is
not completely clear if the enrolled patients were consecutive random patients referred to your
center in a certain time frame
- The reported long recovery time should be better clarified
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Remimazolam for procedural sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: real-life, single
center observational study
Version: 3 Date: 17 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
The paper is very difficult to read, especially the methods section. I think that a complete review
of the paper, either from a linguistic or a "organisational" point of view is essential. I therefore
suggest deeply revising the paper before a new submission.
- It is not clear which was the target desired for procedural sedation (deep sedation?). 6/25
patients needed propofol "rescue" administration during EGDS; this proportion of failures seems
quite high for "standard" EGDS, especially considering that in most centers propofol is not used
by the endoscopists and that midazolam is usually used with success as a single agent for EGDS.
- Methods section is very confusing and difficult to read and requires a complete revision
- It is stated that the target study population was 100 patients. First of all, it is not well explained
how was the ideal study population calculated. Secondly, only 73 patients were finally enrolled,
why?
- A clear definition of inclusion criteria is missing. The period of study is not reported; it is
not completely clear if the enrolled patients were consecutive random patients referred to your
center in a certain time frame
- The reported long recovery time should be better clarified
assistant