Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this
manuscript. I read the manuscript, the reviewers comments and the authors responses, and have
the following comments:
Major:
1. There is lack of detailed methodology regarding multivariate analysis in the methodology
section.
2. How did the authors identify the DL on subsequent endoscopy after first failed treatment?
Was it based on endoscopic tattooing, radiology etc.?
3. The authors should also share any other endoscopic findings in these patients i.e. findings on
index EGD, push enteroscopy, first failed BAE etc. There is a possibility that other endoscopic
diagnosis may have led to shadowing of the real culprit here and this should be discussed.
4. The authors mentioned that emergency SBCE may be limited given the stomach may be full.
Can a prokinetic such as Erythromycin help clean the stomach for increasing the diagnostic
yield? (Aziz M, Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Apr;68(4):1435-1446).
5. The authors mentioned clip placement was the interventions used in majority of patients for
hemostasis choice. Were these through the scope, over-the-scope, etc.? Please give more details.
Minor:
1. The authors need to get this manuscript checked by someone that is proficient in English.
There are lots of grammar and spelling mistakes.
2. Table 1: Antithrombotic drugs – Please be more specific which drugs were looked at.
3. Table 1: No. of endoscopies until confirmed diagnosis- What do you mean by “endoscopices”
here? Is it DBE or any endoscopy. Please be more specific.
4. Table 2: Distribution of lesions- How did the authors determine the accuracy of location?
5. Table 2: What does complicated angiodysplasia mean?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have included my comments. The manuscript may be considered for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily addressed."
Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this
manuscript. I read the manuscript, the reviewers comments and the authors responses, and have
the following comments:
Major:
1. There is lack of detailed methodology regarding multivariate analysis in the methodology
section.
2. How did the authors identify the DL on subsequent endoscopy after first failed treatment?
Was it based on endoscopic tattooing, radiology etc.?
3. The authors should also share any other endoscopic findings in these patients i.e. findings on
index EGD, push enteroscopy, first failed BAE etc. There is a possibility that other endoscopic
diagnosis may have led to shadowing of the real culprit here and this should be discussed.
4. The authors mentioned that emergency SBCE may be limited given the stomach may be full.
Can a prokinetic such as Erythromycin help clean the stomach for increasing the diagnostic
yield? (Aziz M, Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Apr;68(4):1435-1446).
5. The authors mentioned clip placement was the interventions used in majority of patients for
hemostasis choice. Were these through the scope, over-the-scope, etc.? Please give more details.
Minor:
1. The authors need to get this manuscript checked by someone that is proficient in English.
There are lots of grammar and spelling mistakes.
2. Table 1: Antithrombotic drugs – Please be more specific which drugs were looked at.
3. Table 1: No. of endoscopies until confirmed diagnosis- What do you mean by “endoscopices”
here? Is it DBE or any endoscopy. Please be more specific.
4. Table 2: Distribution of lesions- How did the authors determine the accuracy of location?
5. Table 2: What does complicated angiodysplasia mean?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have included my comments. The manuscript may be considered for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily addressed."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 4 Date: 30 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this
manuscript. I read the manuscript, the reviewers comments and the authors responses, and have
the following comments:
Major:
1. There is lack of detailed methodology regarding multivariate analysis in the methodology
section.
2. How did the authors identify the DL on subsequent endoscopy after first failed treatment?
Was it based on endoscopic tattooing, radiology etc.?
3. The authors should also share any other endoscopic findings in these patients i.e. findings on
index EGD, push enteroscopy, first failed BAE etc. There is a possibility that other endoscopic
diagnosis may have led to shadowing of the real culprit here and this should be discussed.
4. The authors mentioned that emergency SBCE may be limited given the stomach may be full.
Can a prokinetic such as Erythromycin help clean the stomach for increasing the diagnostic
yield? (Aziz M, Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Apr;68(4):1435-1446).
5. The authors mentioned clip placement was the interventions used in majority of patients for
hemostasis choice. Were these through the scope, over-the-scope, etc.? Please give more details.
Minor:
1. The authors need to get this manuscript checked by someone that is proficient in English.
There are lots of grammar and spelling mistakes.
2. Table 1: Antithrombotic drugs – Please be more specific which drugs were looked at.
3. Table 1: No. of endoscopies until confirmed diagnosis- What do you mean by “endoscopices”
here? Is it DBE or any endoscopy. Please be more specific.
4. Table 2: Distribution of lesions- How did the authors determine the accuracy of location?
5. Table 2: What does complicated angiodysplasia mean?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I have included my comments. The manuscript may be considered for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily addressed."
assistant