Reviewer’s report
Title:  AIMS65  scoring  system  is  comparable  to  Glasgow-Blatchford  score  or  Rockall  score  for
prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2018
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
"REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER: 
Has  the  author  addressed  your  concerns  sufficiently for  you  to  now  recommend  the  work  as  a
technically sound contribution? Yes
Reviewer comments: THE MANUSCRIPT READS BETTER AND IS MORE SCIENTIFICALLY
CORRECT-- WELL DONE  AUTHORS!  BUT THERE ARE STILL SEVERAL POINTS  THAT
WOULD BENEFIT BY CHANGING- SEE BELOW. 
1. Make your conclusions in the abstract stronger by saying that AIMS65 is a much  easier,  readily
calculated  scoring system compared to the others maybe by ending the conclusions with", but the
AIMS65 scoring system is much easier and readily calculated that the other scoring systems"
2. Add the statistical comparison of the AIMS65 to the other scoring systems in the legend to figure 2
3. Table 4 what are the p values comparing. Best to add a footnote describing this
3. Page 5 line 11 I personally would change the term "spurting" to "actively bleeding"
4. I really think that you should address the limitation of total patient number in the limitations section
of the discussion one sentence only
5. Page 12 lines 33- 39  you need to reword this to" Our study strongly suggests  that the AIMS65
scoring system is better than the GBS system for predicting mortality (p=0.07) ". This way the reader
can determine if they think it is superior ( remember your numbers are not great enough to really
answer the question statistically and the p value is NOT truly statistically significant. Be upfront  and
word it as "strongly suggests" rather than claiming it IS superior."
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was  paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title:  AIMS65  scoring  system  is  comparable  to  Glasgow-Blatchford  score  or  Rockall  score  for
prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2018
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
"REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER: 
Has  the  author  addressed  your  concerns  sufficiently for  you  to  now  recommend  the  work  as  a
technically sound contribution? Yes
Reviewer comments: THE MANUSCRIPT READS BETTER AND IS MORE SCIENTIFICALLY
CORRECT-- WELL DONE  AUTHORS!  BUT THERE ARE STILL SEVERAL POINTS  THAT
WOULD BENEFIT BY CHANGING- SEE BELOW. 
1. Make your conclusions in the abstract stronger by saying that AIMS65 is a much  easier,  readily
calculated  scoring system compared to the others maybe by ending the conclusions with", but the
AIMS65 scoring system is much easier and readily calculated that the other scoring systems"
2. Add the statistical comparison of the AIMS65 to the other scoring systems in the legend to figure 2
3. Table 4 what are the p values comparing. Best to add a footnote describing this
3. Page 5 line 11 I personally would change the term "spurting" to "actively bleeding"
4. I really think that you should address the limitation of total patient number in the limitations section
of the discussion one sentence only
5. Page 12 lines 33- 39  you need to reword this to" Our study strongly suggests  that the AIMS65
scoring system is better than the GBS system for predicting mortality (p=0.07) ". This way the reader
can determine if they think it is superior ( remember your numbers are not great enough to really
answer the question statistically and the p value is NOT truly statistically significant. Be upfront  and
word it as "strongly suggests" rather than claiming it IS superior."
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was  paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title:  AIMS65  scoring  system  is  comparable  to  Glasgow-Blatchford  score  or  Rockall  score  for
prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 1 Date: 07 Nov 2018
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
"REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER: 
Has  the  author  addressed  your  concerns  sufficiently for  you  to  now  recommend  the  work  as  a
technically sound contribution? Yes
Reviewer comments: THE MANUSCRIPT READS BETTER AND IS MORE SCIENTIFICALLY
CORRECT-- WELL DONE  AUTHORS!  BUT THERE ARE STILL SEVERAL POINTS  THAT
WOULD BENEFIT BY CHANGING- SEE BELOW. 
1. Make your conclusions in the abstract stronger by saying that AIMS65 is a much  easier,  readily
calculated  scoring system compared to the others maybe by ending the conclusions with", but the
AIMS65 scoring system is much easier and readily calculated that the other scoring systems"
2. Add the statistical comparison of the AIMS65 to the other scoring systems in the legend to figure 2
3. Table 4 what are the p values comparing. Best to add a footnote describing this
3. Page 5 line 11 I personally would change the term "spurting" to "actively bleeding"
4. I really think that you should address the limitation of total patient number in the limitations section
of the discussion one sentence only
5. Page 12 lines 33- 39  you need to reword this to" Our study strongly suggests  that the AIMS65
scoring system is better than the GBS system for predicting mortality (p=0.07) ". This way the reader
can determine if they think it is superior ( remember your numbers are not great enough to really
answer the question statistically and the p value is NOT truly statistically significant. Be upfront  and
word it as "strongly suggests" rather than claiming it IS superior."
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was  paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant