Reviewer's report
Title:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors prospectively analyzed the therapeutic effect of polaprezinc for small
bowel injury seen in patients under the treatment of LDA, and identified its
possible favorable effect for the patients under CE. Considering the high
prevalence of LDA-induced small-bowel mucosal injuries, and the lack of
established strategies for the prevention, clinical studies, like this trial, should be
encouraged. However, the reviewer has several criticisms regarding this
manuscript as described below.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Totally speaking, the manuscript should be checked by a native English
speaker.
(Methods section)
1. P6, lines 2-7. Patients who were taking NSAIDs other than LDA should be
excluded.
2. P6, line 15. Small-bowel mucosal injuries seen in the subjects were not
definitely proven to be the injuries caused by LDA, because such mucosal
injuries can be identified in a minority of healthy subjects. The authors should
revise the description.
3. P6, line 15-P7, line 1. How were the subjects randomized into two groups?
4. P7, lines 2-4. Were the patients in the control group given placebo? If not,
why?
5. P9, line 16. Considering the small number of subjects, the difference in the
indications for LDA therapy should also be analyzed by Fisher’s exact test.
(Result section)
1. P11, lines 13-14. The reviewer could not identify the meaning of the sentence.
(Discussion section)
1. The authors should describe the strength and limitation of the present study
much more precisely.
Minor essential revisions
(Discussion section)
1. P13, lines 3-5. The adverb “characteristically” should be changed into
“specifically”. However, it seems to the reviewer that such a finding should not be
emphasized in this manuscript, because ulcers were found in only 3 out of 20
patients.
(Tables)
1. Table 2. The number of CE score category of moderate or severe change
seems wrong.
Discretionary revisions
1. The determination of CE score seems unnecessary when considering the way
of definition.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors prospectively analyzed the therapeutic effect of polaprezinc for small
bowel injury seen in patients under the treatment of LDA, and identified its
possible favorable effect for the patients under CE. Considering the high
prevalence of LDA-induced small-bowel mucosal injuries, and the lack of
established strategies for the prevention, clinical studies, like this trial, should be
encouraged. However, the reviewer has several criticisms regarding this
manuscript as described below.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Totally speaking, the manuscript should be checked by a native English
speaker.
(Methods section)
1. P6, lines 2-7. Patients who were taking NSAIDs other than LDA should be
excluded.
2. P6, line 15. Small-bowel mucosal injuries seen in the subjects were not
definitely proven to be the injuries caused by LDA, because such mucosal
injuries can be identified in a minority of healthy subjects. The authors should
revise the description.
3. P6, line 15-P7, line 1. How were the subjects randomized into two groups?
4. P7, lines 2-4. Were the patients in the control group given placebo? If not,
why?
5. P9, line 16. Considering the small number of subjects, the difference in the
indications for LDA therapy should also be analyzed by Fisher’s exact test.
(Result section)
1. P11, lines 13-14. The reviewer could not identify the meaning of the sentence.
(Discussion section)
1. The authors should describe the strength and limitation of the present study
much more precisely.
Minor essential revisions
(Discussion section)
1. P13, lines 3-5. The adverb “characteristically” should be changed into
“specifically”. However, it seems to the reviewer that such a finding should not be
emphasized in this manuscript, because ulcers were found in only 3 out of 20
patients.
(Tables)
1. Table 2. The number of CE score category of moderate or severe change
seems wrong.
Discretionary revisions
1. The determination of CE score seems unnecessary when considering the way
of definition.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Effectiveness of polaprezinc for low-dose aspirin-induced small-bowel
mucosal injuries as evaluated by capsule endoscopy: a pilot randomized
controlled study
Version: 4Date:28 January 2013
Reviewer: Motohiro Esaki
Reviewer's report:
The authors prospectively analyzed the therapeutic effect of polaprezinc for small
bowel injury seen in patients under the treatment of LDA, and identified its
possible favorable effect for the patients under CE. Considering the high
prevalence of LDA-induced small-bowel mucosal injuries, and the lack of
established strategies for the prevention, clinical studies, like this trial, should be
encouraged. However, the reviewer has several criticisms regarding this
manuscript as described below.
Major compulsory revisions
1. Totally speaking, the manuscript should be checked by a native English
speaker.
(Methods section)
1. P6, lines 2-7. Patients who were taking NSAIDs other than LDA should be
excluded.
2. P6, line 15. Small-bowel mucosal injuries seen in the subjects were not
definitely proven to be the injuries caused by LDA, because such mucosal
injuries can be identified in a minority of healthy subjects. The authors should
revise the description.
3. P6, line 15-P7, line 1. How were the subjects randomized into two groups?
4. P7, lines 2-4. Were the patients in the control group given placebo? If not,
why?
5. P9, line 16. Considering the small number of subjects, the difference in the
indications for LDA therapy should also be analyzed by Fisher’s exact test.
(Result section)
1. P11, lines 13-14. The reviewer could not identify the meaning of the sentence.
(Discussion section)
1. The authors should describe the strength and limitation of the present study
much more precisely.
Minor essential revisions
(Discussion section)
1. P13, lines 3-5. The adverb “characteristically” should be changed into
“specifically”. However, it seems to the reviewer that such a finding should not be
emphasized in this manuscript, because ulcers were found in only 3 out of 20
patients.
(Tables)
1. Table 2. The number of CE score category of moderate or severe change
seems wrong.
Discretionary revisions
1. The determination of CE score seems unnecessary when considering the way
of definition.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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