Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors reports on their experience with PEG placement and the impact of these procedures
on weight gain and oral feeding in patients. Congratulations for this interesting work which
seems well conducted and reports interesting results.
Here are my comments:
- Results section 3.2
"A total of 22 patients (...) showing that pharmacological treatment may be sufficient to treat
symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.  - I think the last part of the sentence should be
in the Discussion  and not in the Results sections as it provides an interepretation of the data
rather than simply stating results.
Furthermore, I think that it could be useful to have information on the disappearance vs
worsening of the GERD symptoms after PEG placement to better understand if medical
treatment was indeed effective or  not. You stated at the end of this subsection  that "The patients
were screened after PEG insertion for symptoms suggestive of GERD." what are the results fo
this screening?
- Results section 3.3
Please report the number of patients along with percentages.
The first paragraph is a bit  confusing, maybe it could be rephrased?
There is a typo at the beginning  of the second paragraph
- Discussion
I found the section from "Given the variation in the assessment of GERD" to "We also
recommend a later assessment if necessary. " a little repetitive, maybe it could be improved with
some rephrasing?
"Our findings also revealed that older children experienced longer delays between the clinical
indication for PEG and the procedure, particularly for those with neuromuscular disorders.
Growth impairment after cranial radiation can result in diminished adult height (...)". I don't
understand the correlation between the first sentence and the rest of the paragraph. Maybe it was
meant to be at the beginning of the following paragraph on timing?
Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors reports on their experience with PEG placement and the impact of these procedures
on weight gain and oral feeding in patients. Congratulations for this interesting work which
seems well conducted and reports interesting results.
Here are my comments:
- Results section 3.2
"A total of 22 patients (...) showing that pharmacological treatment may be sufficient to treat
symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.  - I think the last part of the sentence should be
in the Discussion  and not in the Results sections as it provides an interepretation of the data
rather than simply stating results.
Furthermore, I think that it could be useful to have information on the disappearance vs
worsening of the GERD symptoms after PEG placement to better understand if medical
treatment was indeed effective or  not. You stated at the end of this subsection  that "The patients
were screened after PEG insertion for symptoms suggestive of GERD." what are the results fo
this screening?
- Results section 3.3
Please report the number of patients along with percentages.
The first paragraph is a bit  confusing, maybe it could be rephrased?
There is a typo at the beginning  of the second paragraph
- Discussion
I found the section from "Given the variation in the assessment of GERD" to "We also
recommend a later assessment if necessary. " a little repetitive, maybe it could be improved with
some rephrasing?
"Our findings also revealed that older children experienced longer delays between the clinical
indication for PEG and the procedure, particularly for those with neuromuscular disorders.
Growth impairment after cranial radiation can result in diminished adult height (...)". I don't
understand the correlation between the first sentence and the rest of the paragraph. Maybe it was
meant to be at the beginning of the following paragraph on timing?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding in Children: A Single-Center Experience
Version: 1 Date: 13 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors reports on their experience with PEG placement and the impact of these procedures
on weight gain and oral feeding in patients. Congratulations for this interesting work which
seems well conducted and reports interesting results.
Here are my comments:
- Results section 3.2
"A total of 22 patients (...) showing that pharmacological treatment may be sufficient to treat
symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease.  - I think the last part of the sentence should be
in the Discussion  and not in the Results sections as it provides an interepretation of the data
rather than simply stating results.
Furthermore, I think that it could be useful to have information on the disappearance vs
worsening of the GERD symptoms after PEG placement to better understand if medical
treatment was indeed effective or  not. You stated at the end of this subsection  that "The patients
were screened after PEG insertion for symptoms suggestive of GERD." what are the results fo
this screening?
- Results section 3.3
Please report the number of patients along with percentages.
The first paragraph is a bit  confusing, maybe it could be rephrased?
There is a typo at the beginning  of the second paragraph
- Discussion
I found the section from "Given the variation in the assessment of GERD" to "We also
recommend a later assessment if necessary. " a little repetitive, maybe it could be improved with
some rephrasing?
"Our findings also revealed that older children experienced longer delays between the clinical
indication for PEG and the procedure, particularly for those with neuromuscular disorders.
Growth impairment after cranial radiation can result in diminished adult height (...)". I don't
understand the correlation between the first sentence and the rest of the paragraph. Maybe it was
meant to be at the beginning of the following paragraph on timing?
assistant