Reviewer’s report  
Title: Determination of the appropriate propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper 
gastrointestinal endoscopy -a randomized prospective study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2015 
 
Reviewer: Amornyotin  Somchai  
Reviewer’s report:  
The article is aimed to assess the effects of intravenous propofol rates on sedation in outpatients 
undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.   The tit le is "Determination of the appropriate 
propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy -a randomized prospective 
study".  
 
I have some questions.  The authors should to clarify and add the following issues in the text.     
 
1. Several f actors influence the outcome of the study.   Some limitations might be occurred.  
 
2. The authors did not describe the targeted depth of sedation level during the procedure.  
What was the depth of sedation level?  
 
3. The duration of this procedure was relati vely short.  The majority of the indications of 
these procedures may be the diagnostic procedures.  Unfortunately, the authors did not 
show the indications of the procedures.  
 
4. In fact, the different level of sedation depth may create the different rate o f adverse 
effects.  This factor might be influenced the primary outcome of the study.  
 
5. Generally, we know that upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure could be performed 
by using mild or moderate sedation.   Unsurprisingly, propofol infused at 1000 m l/h 
appeared to be the most suitable infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal 
endoscopic procedure.  
 
6. According to No. 5, the result of this study could not apply in the other levels of sedation 
depth.  
 
7. The authors did not demonstrate the cos t-effectiveness of the study.  
 
8. The clinical application of the study is very important.   The authors should to 
recommend the readers "How to apply this knowledge for routine clinical practice?".  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an ad ditional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please in dicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consideri ng the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, fun ding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, e ither 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 t he publication of this manuscript, e ither 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 fin ancial 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on m y 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: Determination of the appropriate propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper 
gastrointestinal endoscopy -a randomized prospective study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2015 
 
Reviewer: Amornyotin  Somchai  
Reviewer’s report:  
The article is aimed to assess the effects of intravenous propofol rates on sedation in outpatients 
undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.   The tit le is "Determination of the appropriate 
propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy -a randomized prospective 
study".  
 
I have some questions.  The authors should to clarify and add the following issues in the text.     
 
1. Several f actors influence the outcome of the study.   Some limitations might be occurred.  
 
2. The authors did not describe the targeted depth of sedation level during the procedure.  
What was the depth of sedation level?  
 
3. The duration of this procedure was relati vely short.  The majority of the indications of 
these procedures may be the diagnostic procedures.  Unfortunately, the authors did not 
show the indications of the procedures.  
 
4. In fact, the different level of sedation depth may create the different rate o f adverse 
effects.  This factor might be influenced the primary outcome of the study.  
 
5. Generally, we know that upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure could be performed 
by using mild or moderate sedation.   Unsurprisingly, propofol infused at 1000 m l/h 
appeared to be the most suitable infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal 
endoscopic procedure.  
 
6. According to No. 5, the result of this study could not apply in the other levels of sedation 
depth.  
 
7. The authors did not demonstrate the cos t-effectiveness of the study.  
 
8. The clinical application of the study is very important.   The authors should to 
recommend the readers "How to apply this knowledge for routine clinical practice?".  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an ad ditional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please in dicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consideri ng the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, fun ding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, e ither 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 t he publication of this manuscript, e ither 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 fin ancial 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on m y 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: Determination of the appropriate propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper 
gastrointestinal endoscopy -a randomized prospective study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 30 Dec 2015 
 
Reviewer: Amornyotin  Somchai  
Reviewer’s report:  
The article is aimed to assess the effects of intravenous propofol rates on sedation in outpatients 
undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.   The tit le is "Determination of the appropriate 
propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy -a randomized prospective 
study".  
 
I have some questions.  The authors should to clarify and add the following issues in the text.     
 
1. Several f actors influence the outcome of the study.   Some limitations might be occurred.  
 
2. The authors did not describe the targeted depth of sedation level during the procedure.  
What was the depth of sedation level?  
 
3. The duration of this procedure was relati vely short.  The majority of the indications of 
these procedures may be the diagnostic procedures.  Unfortunately, the authors did not 
show the indications of the procedures.  
 
4. In fact, the different level of sedation depth may create the different rate o f adverse 
effects.  This factor might be influenced the primary outcome of the study.  
 
5. Generally, we know that upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure could be performed 
by using mild or moderate sedation.   Unsurprisingly, propofol infused at 1000 m l/h 
appeared to be the most suitable infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal 
endoscopic procedure.  
 
6. According to No. 5, the result of this study could not apply in the other levels of sedation 
depth.  
 
7. The authors did not demonstrate the cos t-effectiveness of the study.  
 
8. The clinical application of the study is very important.   The authors should to 
recommend the readers "How to apply this knowledge for routine clinical practice?".  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an ad ditional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of written English  
Please in dicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consideri ng the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, fun ding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, e ither 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 t he publication of this manuscript, e ither 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 fin ancial 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on m y 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