Title: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic removal of foreign bodies from the upper gastrointestinal
tract
Version: 1 Date: 09 Aug 2021
Reviewer:  Arnaldo Amato
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of endoscopic removal
of foreign bodies from the upper g-I tract and risk factors for adverse events.
The paper is clear, well written and easily readable. However, the topic is already present in
the literature and therefore the manuscript lacks originality. Among his strengths there are quite
large numbers, but unfortunately there is no really new contribution compared to what is already
known.
Moreover, some major and minor comments need to be made on the weaknesses of the study:
- considering the two involved centers, it would be interesting to know if there are differences in
accessibility to hospitals by patients or if there are substantial behavioral differences between the
population of the inland and of the coast, for example a different propensity to go to the hospital
- adverse events have been defined as evets requiring additional interventions.  However, in
the text they are divided into major and minor and accordingly reported and it’s reported that
most patients with AEs recovers without further intervention. So it’s not clear if this “further”
intervention refers to a repetition after a first intervention or to the first itself. Please write the
paragraph more clearly.
- Also in the discussion, starting on line 191, the sentence is not so clear, in detail it’s not clear
if “in this study” refers to the manuscript itself or to a previous cited study. Please rearranges
the sentence.
- It was reported that patients underwent TC-scan depending in clinical setting, can you describe
which were the indications and how many times the TC results changed the need for endoscopy
- Patients were not placed under conscious sedation, but additional protective measures were
occasionally used, patients with ingestion of foreign bodies are at higher risk of inhalation,
especially if they are small, during removal maneuvers. Why not carry out the procedure under
NORA? Moreover, it would be interesting to know when protective measures have been used
and whether there are hospital protocols for the management of foreign bodies and therefore
also for the use of such devices.
Title: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic removal of foreign bodies from the upper gastrointestinal
tract
Version: 1 Date: 09 Aug 2021
Reviewer:  Arnaldo Amato
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of endoscopic removal
of foreign bodies from the upper g-I tract and risk factors for adverse events.
The paper is clear, well written and easily readable. However, the topic is already present in
the literature and therefore the manuscript lacks originality. Among his strengths there are quite
large numbers, but unfortunately there is no really new contribution compared to what is already
known.
Moreover, some major and minor comments need to be made on the weaknesses of the study:
- considering the two involved centers, it would be interesting to know if there are differences in
accessibility to hospitals by patients or if there are substantial behavioral differences between the
population of the inland and of the coast, for example a different propensity to go to the hospital
- adverse events have been defined as evets requiring additional interventions.  However, in
the text they are divided into major and minor and accordingly reported and it’s reported that
most patients with AEs recovers without further intervention. So it’s not clear if this “further”
intervention refers to a repetition after a first intervention or to the first itself. Please write the
paragraph more clearly.
- Also in the discussion, starting on line 191, the sentence is not so clear, in detail it’s not clear
if “in this study” refers to the manuscript itself or to a previous cited study. Please rearranges
the sentence.
- It was reported that patients underwent TC-scan depending in clinical setting, can you describe
which were the indications and how many times the TC results changed the need for endoscopy
- Patients were not placed under conscious sedation, but additional protective measures were
occasionally used, patients with ingestion of foreign bodies are at higher risk of inhalation,
especially if they are small, during removal maneuvers. Why not carry out the procedure under
NORA? Moreover, it would be interesting to know when protective measures have been used
and whether there are hospital protocols for the management of foreign bodies and therefore
also for the use of such devices.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic removal of foreign bodies from the upper gastrointestinal
tract
Version: 1 Date: 09 Aug 2021
Reviewer:  Arnaldo Amato
Reviewer's report:
This is a retrospective study aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of endoscopic removal
of foreign bodies from the upper g-I tract and risk factors for adverse events.
The paper is clear, well written and easily readable. However, the topic is already present in
the literature and therefore the manuscript lacks originality. Among his strengths there are quite
large numbers, but unfortunately there is no really new contribution compared to what is already
known.
Moreover, some major and minor comments need to be made on the weaknesses of the study:
- considering the two involved centers, it would be interesting to know if there are differences in
accessibility to hospitals by patients or if there are substantial behavioral differences between the
population of the inland and of the coast, for example a different propensity to go to the hospital
- adverse events have been defined as evets requiring additional interventions.  However, in
the text they are divided into major and minor and accordingly reported and it’s reported that
most patients with AEs recovers without further intervention. So it’s not clear if this “further”
intervention refers to a repetition after a first intervention or to the first itself. Please write the
paragraph more clearly.
- Also in the discussion, starting on line 191, the sentence is not so clear, in detail it’s not clear
if “in this study” refers to the manuscript itself or to a previous cited study. Please rearranges
the sentence.
- It was reported that patients underwent TC-scan depending in clinical setting, can you describe
which were the indications and how many times the TC results changed the need for endoscopy
- Patients were not placed under conscious sedation, but additional protective measures were
occasionally used, patients with ingestion of foreign bodies are at higher risk of inhalation,
especially if they are small, during removal maneuvers. Why not carry out the procedure under
NORA? Moreover, it would be interesting to know when protective measures have been used
and whether there are hospital protocols for the management of foreign bodies and therefore
also for the use of such devices.
assistant