Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: are these a distinct group?
Version: 1Date:24 January 2011
Reviewer: Takayuki Matsumoto
Reviewer's report:
The authors address the nature and long-term outcome of non-specific small
bowel ulcers, which were not, unfortunately, well-defined in the manuscript.
Major comments:
1. The authors defined ulcer as "being no smaller than 3mm in diameter with
significant depth". However, most ulcers in this manuscript were small (almost
near 3mm) and superficial, typically observed in Fig. 1. This may raise the
possibility that most cases in this manuscript can be categorized as "Non-specific
small bowel ulcers" as the other papers defined as "erosions or nonspecific
ileitis".
2. These small ulcers or erosions in ileum could be found in 1-3% of the
screening colonoscopy or colonoscopy for diarrhea patients. (Joeng SH, et al. J
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23:51-55. and Ref. 25.
3. Are there any possibilities that the clinical course and outcome differ in the
present patients and reported cases as nonspecific small bowel ulcer (p.7)
because the present cases include mild ileitis sometimes observed in the
screening colonoscopy?
4. The present cases include non-symptomatic patient (case 7) and single small
erosion only on ileocecal valve. Those patients could be non-symptomatic , and
therefore, it is not always link to the IBS symptoms. It is not suitable to sum up
these cases to a single syndrome.
5. Matsumoto, et al. defined CNSU (Ref. 18) as having more than 20 ulcers in
the small bowel. The authors should describe.
6. In discussion (p.8), the authors described that the negative effects of %-ASA
as a basis to deny inflammatory bowel disease. However 40% of the IBD patients
do not respond to 5-ASA.
Minor comments:
1. How about the fecal occult blood test?
2. Table 1; “female” to “Female”
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: are these a distinct group?
Version: 1Date:24 January 2011
Reviewer: Takayuki Matsumoto
Reviewer's report:
The authors address the nature and long-term outcome of non-specific small
bowel ulcers, which were not, unfortunately, well-defined in the manuscript.
Major comments:
1. The authors defined ulcer as "being no smaller than 3mm in diameter with
significant depth". However, most ulcers in this manuscript were small (almost
near 3mm) and superficial, typically observed in Fig. 1. This may raise the
possibility that most cases in this manuscript can be categorized as "Non-specific
small bowel ulcers" as the other papers defined as "erosions or nonspecific
ileitis".
2. These small ulcers or erosions in ileum could be found in 1-3% of the
screening colonoscopy or colonoscopy for diarrhea patients. (Joeng SH, et al. J
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23:51-55. and Ref. 25.
3. Are there any possibilities that the clinical course and outcome differ in the
present patients and reported cases as nonspecific small bowel ulcer (p.7)
because the present cases include mild ileitis sometimes observed in the
screening colonoscopy?
4. The present cases include non-symptomatic patient (case 7) and single small
erosion only on ileocecal valve. Those patients could be non-symptomatic , and
therefore, it is not always link to the IBS symptoms. It is not suitable to sum up
these cases to a single syndrome.
5. Matsumoto, et al. defined CNSU (Ref. 18) as having more than 20 ulcers in
the small bowel. The authors should describe.
6. In discussion (p.8), the authors described that the negative effects of %-ASA
as a basis to deny inflammatory bowel disease. However 40% of the IBD patients
do not respond to 5-ASA.
Minor comments:
1. How about the fecal occult blood test?
2. Table 1; “female” to “Female”
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Long-term follow-up of nonspecific small bowel ulcers with a benign course
and no requirement for surgery: are these a distinct group?
Version: 1Date:24 January 2011
Reviewer: Takayuki Matsumoto
Reviewer's report:
The authors address the nature and long-term outcome of non-specific small
bowel ulcers, which were not, unfortunately, well-defined in the manuscript.
Major comments:
1. The authors defined ulcer as "being no smaller than 3mm in diameter with
significant depth". However, most ulcers in this manuscript were small (almost
near 3mm) and superficial, typically observed in Fig. 1. This may raise the
possibility that most cases in this manuscript can be categorized as "Non-specific
small bowel ulcers" as the other papers defined as "erosions or nonspecific
ileitis".
2. These small ulcers or erosions in ileum could be found in 1-3% of the
screening colonoscopy or colonoscopy for diarrhea patients. (Joeng SH, et al. J
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23:51-55. and Ref. 25.
3. Are there any possibilities that the clinical course and outcome differ in the
present patients and reported cases as nonspecific small bowel ulcer (p.7)
because the present cases include mild ileitis sometimes observed in the
screening colonoscopy?
4. The present cases include non-symptomatic patient (case 7) and single small
erosion only on ileocecal valve. Those patients could be non-symptomatic , and
therefore, it is not always link to the IBS symptoms. It is not suitable to sum up
these cases to a single syndrome.
5. Matsumoto, et al. defined CNSU (Ref. 18) as having more than 20 ulcers in
the small bowel. The authors should describe.
6. In discussion (p.8), the authors described that the negative effects of %-ASA
as a basis to deny inflammatory bowel disease. However 40% of the IBD patients
do not respond to 5-ASA.
Minor comments:
1. How about the fecal occult blood test?
2. Table 1; “female” to “Female”
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant