Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall s coring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper 
gastrointestinal  bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Regional China  
 
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2018  
 
Reviewer: Chie h-Chang Chen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The authors compared AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death in a retrospective cohort.  
 
The following comments are for the reference of authors:  
1. Participants were recruited from the patients who had signs and symptoms of UGIB and were 
hospitalized. Those patients were excluded if they didn't receive endoscopy exam, and had 
missing data. How many patients were excluded from the cohort? Critical patients who are too 
risky for endoscopy may have high mortality. AIMS65 and GBS were non -endoscopy based 
scoring system and excluding patient without endoscopy, may affect the generalization of the 
presented study and may cause possible bias. Authors may compare pre -endos copy rockall 
score (rockall score without endoscopy) with GBS, and AIMS65.  
2. The presented study used retrospective cohort and the parameters need for score calculation 
were retrived by medical records. This could potentially lead to errors in risk score 
calculation, especially because the risk scores incorporate subjective parameters that require 
some degree of interpretation.  
3. In section of "Statistical analysis", authors used two models to analyze the assoications of RS, 
GBS and AIMS65 scores with th r isk of in -hospital death. The model 2 adjusted for 
participants' age, gender and other potential clinical confounders. (Page 8). Some of the 
parameters used in model 2 were also used in scoring systems, such as age and BP in RS, 
GBS, and AIMS65, BUN in GBS , etc) and they have statistical interaction with these scores.  
 
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 t o the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments t o the editors.  
I recommend additional statistical review  
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, eit her now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 giv e details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below  
 
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 r eport 
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 unders tand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall s coring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper 
gastrointestinal  bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Regional China  
 
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2018  
 
Reviewer: Chie h-Chang Chen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The authors compared AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death in a retrospective cohort.  
 
The following comments are for the reference of authors:  
1. Participants were recruited from the patients who had signs and symptoms of UGIB and were 
hospitalized. Those patients were excluded if they didn't receive endoscopy exam, and had 
missing data. How many patients were excluded from the cohort? Critical patients who are too 
risky for endoscopy may have high mortality. AIMS65 and GBS were non -endoscopy based 
scoring system and excluding patient without endoscopy, may affect the generalization of the 
presented study and may cause possible bias. Authors may compare pre -endos copy rockall 
score (rockall score without endoscopy) with GBS, and AIMS65.  
2. The presented study used retrospective cohort and the parameters need for score calculation 
were retrived by medical records. This could potentially lead to errors in risk score 
calculation, especially because the risk scores incorporate subjective parameters that require 
some degree of interpretation.  
3. In section of "Statistical analysis", authors used two models to analyze the assoications of RS, 
GBS and AIMS65 scores with th r isk of in -hospital death. The model 2 adjusted for 
participants' age, gender and other potential clinical confounders. (Page 8). Some of the 
parameters used in model 2 were also used in scoring systems, such as age and BP in RS, 
GBS, and AIMS65, BUN in GBS , etc) and they have statistical interaction with these scores.  
 
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 t o the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments t o the editors.  
I recommend additional statistical review  
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, eit her now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 giv e details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below  
 
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 r eport 
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 unders tand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall s coring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper 
gastrointestinal  bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Regional China  
 
Version: 1 Date: 01 Apr 2018  
 
Reviewer: Chie h-Chang Chen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The authors compared AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death in a retrospective cohort.  
 
The following comments are for the reference of authors:  
1. Participants were recruited from the patients who had signs and symptoms of UGIB and were 
hospitalized. Those patients were excluded if they didn't receive endoscopy exam, and had 
missing data. How many patients were excluded from the cohort? Critical patients who are too 
risky for endoscopy may have high mortality. AIMS65 and GBS were non -endoscopy based 
scoring system and excluding patient without endoscopy, may affect the generalization of the 
presented study and may cause possible bias. Authors may compare pre -endos copy rockall 
score (rockall score without endoscopy) with GBS, and AIMS65.  
2. The presented study used retrospective cohort and the parameters need for score calculation 
were retrived by medical records. This could potentially lead to errors in risk score 
calculation, especially because the risk scores incorporate subjective parameters that require 
some degree of interpretation.  
3. In section of "Statistical analysis", authors used two models to analyze the assoications of RS, 
GBS and AIMS65 scores with th r isk of in -hospital death. The model 2 adjusted for 
participants' age, gender and other potential clinical confounders. (Page 8). Some of the 
parameters used in model 2 were also used in scoring systems, such as age and BP in RS, 
GBS, and AIMS65, BUN in GBS , etc) and they have statistical interaction with these scores.  
 
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 t o the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments t o the editors.  
I recommend additional statistical review  
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, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, eit her now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 giv e details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below  
 
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 r eport 
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 unders tand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant