Reviewer’s report
Title: Diagnostic efficacy of double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with suspected isolated small
bowel Crohn’s disease
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Ilhami Yuksel
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the Authors aimed to investigate the value of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE)
for diagnosis of isolated small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). This is so valuable study, however I have
some questions and comments, which should be addressed by the Authors. 
Major comments
1. The study design appears confused because of DBE was used as a diagnostic tool and also an
activity detector in the present study. 
I think that the Authors did not need to evaluate CD activity or respond to treatment. In the current
study, DBE was just used as a diagnostic tool in suspected isolated small bowel CD. Thus the Authors
should omit the part of the paper that does not include diagnostic estimation of DBE for making the
diagnosis of isolated small bowel CD.  
2. In the material and method, the Authors mentioned that EGD, colonoscopy, CTE or enhanced
computed tomography (CT), and VCE were done in some cases. CTE and VCE were performed in just
some cases, although all patients underwent CT (table 1). CT is satisfactory for the suspicion of small
bowel CD. The Authors might exclude the results of CTE and VCE from the main text and tables. 
3.  This  study  is  also  not  a  surveillance  study,  so  Authors  should  omit  surveillance  results  and
information  like  "three  patients  underwent  DBE  surveillance  after  treatment  and  were  found  to
improve, on the basis of endoscopic images…". 
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 manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality 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 salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially 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 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 declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand 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 included 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: Diagnostic efficacy of double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with suspected isolated small
bowel Crohn’s disease
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Ilhami Yuksel
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the Authors aimed to investigate the value of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE)
for diagnosis of isolated small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). This is so valuable study, however I have
some questions and comments, which should be addressed by the Authors. 
Major comments
1. The study design appears confused because of DBE was used as a diagnostic tool and also an
activity detector in the present study. 
I think that the Authors did not need to evaluate CD activity or respond to treatment. In the current
study, DBE was just used as a diagnostic tool in suspected isolated small bowel CD. Thus the Authors
should omit the part of the paper that does not include diagnostic estimation of DBE for making the
diagnosis of isolated small bowel CD.  
2. In the material and method, the Authors mentioned that EGD, colonoscopy, CTE or enhanced
computed tomography (CT), and VCE were done in some cases. CTE and VCE were performed in just
some cases, although all patients underwent CT (table 1). CT is satisfactory for the suspicion of small
bowel CD. The Authors might exclude the results of CTE and VCE from the main text and tables. 
3.  This  study  is  also  not  a  surveillance  study,  so  Authors  should  omit  surveillance  results  and
information  like  "three  patients  underwent  DBE  surveillance  after  treatment  and  were  found  to
improve, on the basis of endoscopic images…". 
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 manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality 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 salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially 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 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 declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand 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 included 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: Diagnostic efficacy of double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with suspected isolated small
bowel Crohn’s disease
Version: 1 Date: 05 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Ilhami Yuksel
Reviewer's report:
In the present study, the Authors aimed to investigate the value of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE)
for diagnosis of isolated small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). This is so valuable study, however I have
some questions and comments, which should be addressed by the Authors. 
Major comments
1. The study design appears confused because of DBE was used as a diagnostic tool and also an
activity detector in the present study. 
I think that the Authors did not need to evaluate CD activity or respond to treatment. In the current
study, DBE was just used as a diagnostic tool in suspected isolated small bowel CD. Thus the Authors
should omit the part of the paper that does not include diagnostic estimation of DBE for making the
diagnosis of isolated small bowel CD.  
2. In the material and method, the Authors mentioned that EGD, colonoscopy, CTE or enhanced
computed tomography (CT), and VCE were done in some cases. CTE and VCE were performed in just
some cases, although all patients underwent CT (table 1). CT is satisfactory for the suspicion of small
bowel CD. The Authors might exclude the results of CTE and VCE from the main text and tables. 
3.  This  study  is  also  not  a  surveillance  study,  so  Authors  should  omit  surveillance  results  and
information  like  "three  patients  underwent  DBE  surveillance  after  treatment  and  were  found  to
improve, on the basis of endoscopic images…". 
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 manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality 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 salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially 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 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 declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand 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 included as confidential comments
to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant