Reviewer's report
Title:Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in a Nigerian tertiary health
facility
Version:2Date:20 September 2014
Reviewer: Sung-shuo Kao
Reviewer's report:
My comments
1) Since duodenal ulcer is the majority cause of upper GI bleeding in this study,
the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and the percentage of patients
using NSAID/anti-platelet drugs are better recorded. If HP status was not
checked in some patients, it deserved to be discussed in the limitation.
2) In page 10 and 11, the author demonstrated the benefits of endoscopic
therapy for variceal bleeding. In page 17, the conclusion said that #Endoscopic
therapy in resource poor setting like Nigeria could be life-saving.# This is partially
true according to current presentation. For the conclusion that endoscopic
therapy is life-saving, it's better for the author to compare the mortality and
rebleeding rate between groups who received endoscopic therapy and groups
who did not.
3) In page 11, the author reported the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy is
90.5%, and no rebleeding was found in patients with ulcer bleeding. I am
interested in the rebleeding rate in patients who should but did not receive
endoscopic therapy. Is there any significance between these two groups? If so,
what is the rebleeding rate in untreated group?
4) The rate of gastritis-related bleeding is higher than that of gastric ulcer
bleeding in this study. It would be nice to see the reason why gastritis-related GI
bleeding is high in Southern Nigeria.
5) The author has done many subgroup comparison and analysis. This is really a
good chance to see the difference between treated and untreated patients. To
clarify the analytic data, I suggested the author to set a table demonstrating
mortality, rebleeding, blood transfusion units, and hospital stay in treated and
untreated groups.
Specific comments:
1) P.4 line 6. #will died of# is better corrected as #will die of#
2) P.7 line 18. #Injection sclerotherapy# is better corrected as #injection therapy#
3) P.13 line 15. #Upper GI endoscopy remain# is better corrected as #Upper GI
endoscopy remains#
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in a Nigerian tertiary health
facility
Version:2Date:20 September 2014
Reviewer: Sung-shuo Kao
Reviewer's report:
My comments
1) Since duodenal ulcer is the majority cause of upper GI bleeding in this study,
the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and the percentage of patients
using NSAID/anti-platelet drugs are better recorded. If HP status was not
checked in some patients, it deserved to be discussed in the limitation.
2) In page 10 and 11, the author demonstrated the benefits of endoscopic
therapy for variceal bleeding. In page 17, the conclusion said that #Endoscopic
therapy in resource poor setting like Nigeria could be life-saving.# This is partially
true according to current presentation. For the conclusion that endoscopic
therapy is life-saving, it's better for the author to compare the mortality and
rebleeding rate between groups who received endoscopic therapy and groups
who did not.
3) In page 11, the author reported the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy is
90.5%, and no rebleeding was found in patients with ulcer bleeding. I am
interested in the rebleeding rate in patients who should but did not receive
endoscopic therapy. Is there any significance between these two groups? If so,
what is the rebleeding rate in untreated group?
4) The rate of gastritis-related bleeding is higher than that of gastric ulcer
bleeding in this study. It would be nice to see the reason why gastritis-related GI
bleeding is high in Southern Nigeria.
5) The author has done many subgroup comparison and analysis. This is really a
good chance to see the difference between treated and untreated patients. To
clarify the analytic data, I suggested the author to set a table demonstrating
mortality, rebleeding, blood transfusion units, and hospital stay in treated and
untreated groups.
Specific comments:
1) P.4 line 6. #will died of# is better corrected as #will die of#
2) P.7 line 18. #Injection sclerotherapy# is better corrected as #injection therapy#
3) P.13 line 15. #Upper GI endoscopy remain# is better corrected as #Upper GI
endoscopy remains#
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in a Nigerian tertiary health
facility
Version:2Date:20 September 2014
Reviewer: Sung-shuo Kao
Reviewer's report:
My comments
1) Since duodenal ulcer is the majority cause of upper GI bleeding in this study,
the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection and the percentage of patients
using NSAID/anti-platelet drugs are better recorded. If HP status was not
checked in some patients, it deserved to be discussed in the limitation.
2) In page 10 and 11, the author demonstrated the benefits of endoscopic
therapy for variceal bleeding. In page 17, the conclusion said that #Endoscopic
therapy in resource poor setting like Nigeria could be life-saving.# This is partially
true according to current presentation. For the conclusion that endoscopic
therapy is life-saving, it's better for the author to compare the mortality and
rebleeding rate between groups who received endoscopic therapy and groups
who did not.
3) In page 11, the author reported the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy is
90.5%, and no rebleeding was found in patients with ulcer bleeding. I am
interested in the rebleeding rate in patients who should but did not receive
endoscopic therapy. Is there any significance between these two groups? If so,
what is the rebleeding rate in untreated group?
4) The rate of gastritis-related bleeding is higher than that of gastric ulcer
bleeding in this study. It would be nice to see the reason why gastritis-related GI
bleeding is high in Southern Nigeria.
5) The author has done many subgroup comparison and analysis. This is really a
good chance to see the difference between treated and untreated patients. To
clarify the analytic data, I suggested the author to set a table demonstrating
mortality, rebleeding, blood transfusion units, and hospital stay in treated and
untreated groups.
Specific comments:
1) P.4 line 6. #will died of# is better corrected as #will die of#
2) P.7 line 18. #Injection sclerotherapy# is better corrected as #injection therapy#
3) P.13 line 15. #Upper GI endoscopy remain# is better corrected as #Upper GI
endoscopy remains#
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant