Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jul 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 revising the manuscript based on the comments.
I have very minor comments: (1) Please revise the conclusion to include "after standard
endoscopic evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy is unrevealing". A
patient may presents with multiple episodes of hematochezia and that does not necessarily
warrant DBE. (2) Table 3 and 4 can be merged and consolidated.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see the comments. Very minor comments that can be easily taken care of.
Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jul 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 revising the manuscript based on the comments.
I have very minor comments: (1) Please revise the conclusion to include "after standard
endoscopic evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy is unrevealing". A
patient may presents with multiple episodes of hematochezia and that does not necessarily
warrant DBE. (2) Table 3 and 4 can be merged and consolidated.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see the comments. Very minor comments that can be easily taken care of.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical characteristics of Dieulafoy’s Lesion in the Small Bowel Diagnosed and Treated
by Double-Balloon Endoscopy
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jul 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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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 revising the manuscript based on the comments.
I have very minor comments: (1) Please revise the conclusion to include "after standard
endoscopic evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy is unrevealing". A
patient may presents with multiple episodes of hematochezia and that does not necessarily
warrant DBE. (2) Table 3 and 4 can be merged and consolidated.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Please see the comments. Very minor comments that can be easily taken care of.
assistant