Reviewer's report
Title:Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding
for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy
Version: 2Date:10 April 2012
Reviewer: Tien-Yu Huang
Reviewer's report:
The article submitted by Dr Yen and collaborators revealed that there is no
significant difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI
treatment in patient with high risk peptic ulcer bleeding after endoscopic therapy
under the design of this study. This is an interesting and attracting issue. This
manuscript also provides us new idea and thinking about therapy in these
patients with high-risk peptic ulcer. However, there are some limitations and
points should be addressed in order to answer this important issue.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. According to the mention of authors, the sample size estimation was based on
an expected re-bleeding rate of 30% in the LAN group. However, the re-bleeding
rate was only 4% actually in this study. About sample size, my concern is
whether there is enough statistical power to make a convincing conclusion.
2. The authors concluded that oral proton pump inhibitors have a shorter hospital
stay. However, some enrolled patients were allowed at home in the LAN group.
Whether LAN group contained these patient staying at home on the comparison
of these two groups or not? It could not be pointed out and realized from Table 2.
3. There is a discrepancy in the abstract (about hospital stay in the Results)
4. Why not use oral esomeprazole to compare with intravenous esomeprazole?
(Minor Essential Revisions)
1. P1. There is one missing word within the running title: proton pump-->proton
pump inhibitor
2. P20. reference 21: Gut 2011-->Gut 2011; 60:1444
3. About the figure 1, it needs slight modification. Some redundant mentions
could be removed (e.g. other reasons…).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding
for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy
Version: 2Date:10 April 2012
Reviewer: Tien-Yu Huang
Reviewer's report:
The article submitted by Dr Yen and collaborators revealed that there is no
significant difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI
treatment in patient with high risk peptic ulcer bleeding after endoscopic therapy
under the design of this study. This is an interesting and attracting issue. This
manuscript also provides us new idea and thinking about therapy in these
patients with high-risk peptic ulcer. However, there are some limitations and
points should be addressed in order to answer this important issue.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. According to the mention of authors, the sample size estimation was based on
an expected re-bleeding rate of 30% in the LAN group. However, the re-bleeding
rate was only 4% actually in this study. About sample size, my concern is
whether there is enough statistical power to make a convincing conclusion.
2. The authors concluded that oral proton pump inhibitors have a shorter hospital
stay. However, some enrolled patients were allowed at home in the LAN group.
Whether LAN group contained these patient staying at home on the comparison
of these two groups or not? It could not be pointed out and realized from Table 2.
3. There is a discrepancy in the abstract (about hospital stay in the Results)
4. Why not use oral esomeprazole to compare with intravenous esomeprazole?
(Minor Essential Revisions)
1. P1. There is one missing word within the running title: proton pump-->proton
pump inhibitor
2. P20. reference 21: Gut 2011-->Gut 2011; 60:1444
3. About the figure 1, it needs slight modification. Some redundant mentions
could be removed (e.g. other reasons…).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Oral versus intravenous proton pump inhibitors in preventing re-bleeding
for patients with peptic ulcer bleeding after successful endoscopic therapy
Version: 2Date:10 April 2012
Reviewer: Tien-Yu Huang
Reviewer's report:
The article submitted by Dr Yen and collaborators revealed that there is no
significant difference in clinical outcomes between oral and intravenous PPI
treatment in patient with high risk peptic ulcer bleeding after endoscopic therapy
under the design of this study. This is an interesting and attracting issue. This
manuscript also provides us new idea and thinking about therapy in these
patients with high-risk peptic ulcer. However, there are some limitations and
points should be addressed in order to answer this important issue.
(Major Compulsory Revisions)
1. According to the mention of authors, the sample size estimation was based on
an expected re-bleeding rate of 30% in the LAN group. However, the re-bleeding
rate was only 4% actually in this study. About sample size, my concern is
whether there is enough statistical power to make a convincing conclusion.
2. The authors concluded that oral proton pump inhibitors have a shorter hospital
stay. However, some enrolled patients were allowed at home in the LAN group.
Whether LAN group contained these patient staying at home on the comparison
of these two groups or not? It could not be pointed out and realized from Table 2.
3. There is a discrepancy in the abstract (about hospital stay in the Results)
4. Why not use oral esomeprazole to compare with intravenous esomeprazole?
(Minor Essential Revisions)
1. P1. There is one missing word within the running title: proton pump-->proton
pump inhibitor
2. P20. reference 21: Gut 2011-->Gut 2011; 60:1444
3. About the figure 1, it needs slight modification. Some redundant mentions
could be removed (e.g. other reasons…).
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant