Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 2Date:7 October 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The revision gives clarification on the lacking information of the first version.
However, the information provided by the authors raises questions on major
aspects of their data interpretation and/or conclusions.
1) The "small" magnet was by no means small (6x15 mm, 1.6 g!). Such a large
magnet will not pass the small intestine with the meal (as the authors agree in
their revision). Accordingly, it is imposible to draw conclusion on postprandial
small contraction frequencies or transit velocities. In the current version, this is
still a major aspect of the mansucript.
2) The authors state in their revision that is it is impossible to differentiate
movements of the intestine from movements or the magnet inside the intestine
by using MTS-1 data as performed by the authors. The reviewer agrees. But why
do the author only comment on this without drawing the necessary
consequences with rewpect to their data calculation and presentation? To the
understanding of the reviewer one might argue, that the observed short bursts of
transport are very likely to reflect intraluminal transport. However, calulations of
mean transport velocities are impossible as long as a correct measure of the
length of the small intestine is missing. distance.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 2Date:7 October 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The revision gives clarification on the lacking information of the first version.
However, the information provided by the authors raises questions on major
aspects of their data interpretation and/or conclusions.
1) The "small" magnet was by no means small (6x15 mm, 1.6 g!). Such a large
magnet will not pass the small intestine with the meal (as the authors agree in
their revision). Accordingly, it is imposible to draw conclusion on postprandial
small contraction frequencies or transit velocities. In the current version, this is
still a major aspect of the mansucript.
2) The authors state in their revision that is it is impossible to differentiate
movements of the intestine from movements or the magnet inside the intestine
by using MTS-1 data as performed by the authors. The reviewer agrees. But why
do the author only comment on this without drawing the necessary
consequences with rewpect to their data calculation and presentation? To the
understanding of the reviewer one might argue, that the observed short bursts of
transport are very likely to reflect intraluminal transport. However, calulations of
mean transport velocities are impossible as long as a correct measure of the
length of the small intestine is missing. distance.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Gastric emptying and small intestinal transit time and motility assessed by
a magnet tracking system
Version: 2Date:7 October 2011
Reviewer: Werner Weitschies
Reviewer's report:
Major Compulsory Revisions
The revision gives clarification on the lacking information of the first version.
However, the information provided by the authors raises questions on major
aspects of their data interpretation and/or conclusions.
1) The "small" magnet was by no means small (6x15 mm, 1.6 g!). Such a large
magnet will not pass the small intestine with the meal (as the authors agree in
their revision). Accordingly, it is imposible to draw conclusion on postprandial
small contraction frequencies or transit velocities. In the current version, this is
still a major aspect of the mansucript.
2) The authors state in their revision that is it is impossible to differentiate
movements of the intestine from movements or the magnet inside the intestine
by using MTS-1 data as performed by the authors. The reviewer agrees. But why
do the author only comment on this without drawing the necessary
consequences with rewpect to their data calculation and presentation? To the
understanding of the reviewer one might argue, that the observed short bursts of
transport are very likely to reflect intraluminal transport. However, calulations of
mean transport velocities are impossible as long as a correct measure of the
length of the small intestine is missing. distance.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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