Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China  
 
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Chunhui Wang  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than upload ing your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comme nts to the authors.  
 
The present research demonstrates different composition of gender, age, FB types and impacted 
position between two population groups of intentional and accidental FB ingestion. Still, there 
are several limitations which need to be addre ssed by the authors to raise its quality.  
 
1. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients should be provided. A flow chart of 
patient selection would give the readers a clear impression of the article.  
 
2. Previous reports indicated that longer imp action time and sharpness of FB are 
important risk factors to develop major complications in patients with FB ingestion. As 
patients in group A possess these two features, it would be of great value to compare 
the complication between groups and provide ne w evidence for Clinicians.  
 
3. Statistical analysis should be more specific and detailed. E.g. the Authors described a 
longer impaction time in intentional group, but they didn't describe how the data was 
expressed and what statistical method was adopted. M oreover, authors should mention 
actual p values, and not just &lt;0.05.  
 
4. The footnotes of tables should be detailed. E.g. what does "Group A" and "Group B" 
stand for? What does "Other mental objects" include in Table 2?  
 
5. The language needs to be improved.  
 
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, pl ease 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 specify what aspects require furth er 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration o f competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
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 that may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication 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 inte rests?  
 
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 declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare t hat i have no competing interests  
 
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 for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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: Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China  
 
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Chunhui Wang  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than upload ing your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comme nts to the authors.  
 
The present research demonstrates different composition of gender, age, FB types and impacted 
position between two population groups of intentional and accidental FB ingestion. Still, there 
are several limitations which need to be addre ssed by the authors to raise its quality.  
 
1. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients should be provided. A flow chart of 
patient selection would give the readers a clear impression of the article.  
 
2. Previous reports indicated that longer imp action time and sharpness of FB are 
important risk factors to develop major complications in patients with FB ingestion. As 
patients in group A possess these two features, it would be of great value to compare 
the complication between groups and provide ne w evidence for Clinicians.  
 
3. Statistical analysis should be more specific and detailed. E.g. the Authors described a 
longer impaction time in intentional group, but they didn't describe how the data was 
expressed and what statistical method was adopted. M oreover, authors should mention 
actual p values, and not just &lt;0.05.  
 
4. The footnotes of tables should be detailed. E.g. what does "Group A" and "Group B" 
stand for? What does "Other mental objects" include in Table 2?  
 
5. The language needs to be improved.  
 
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, pl ease 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 specify what aspects require furth er 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration o f competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
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 that may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication 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 inte rests?  
 
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 declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare t hat i have no competing interests  
 
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 for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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: Differences between intentional and accidental ingestion of foreign body in China  
 
Version: 0 Date: 20 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Chunhui Wang  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than upload ing your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comme nts to the authors.  
 
The present research demonstrates different composition of gender, age, FB types and impacted 
position between two population groups of intentional and accidental FB ingestion. Still, there 
are several limitations which need to be addre ssed by the authors to raise its quality.  
 
1. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients should be provided. A flow chart of 
patient selection would give the readers a clear impression of the article.  
 
2. Previous reports indicated that longer imp action time and sharpness of FB are 
important risk factors to develop major complications in patients with FB ingestion. As 
patients in group A possess these two features, it would be of great value to compare 
the complication between groups and provide ne w evidence for Clinicians.  
 
3. Statistical analysis should be more specific and detailed. E.g. the Authors described a 
longer impaction time in intentional group, but they didn't describe how the data was 
expressed and what statistical method was adopted. M oreover, authors should mention 
actual p values, and not just &lt;0.05.  
 
4. The footnotes of tables should be detailed. E.g. what does "Group A" and "Group B" 
stand for? What does "Other mental objects" include in Table 2?  
 
5. The language needs to be improved.  
 
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, pl ease 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 specify what aspects require furth er 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration o f competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
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 that may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication 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 inte rests?  
 
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 declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare t hat i have no competing interests  
 
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 for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative 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