Title: Who would avoid severe adverse events from nasointestinal tube in small bowel
obstruction?—a matched case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors report the use of nasointestinal tube (NIT) to treat conservatively
patients with small bowel occlusion. The concept seems interesting but this study can’t answer
to the superiority of this treatment as compared with other conservative management. Only a
randomized study could evaluate risk and benefits of NIT.
Many points have to be addressed to improve the quality of this paper.
In the diagnosis criteria, the authors mentioned a: distended large bowel. Is it usual in patients
with SBO? In figure 6 we can see contrast in large bowel. Why? Did the authors use gastrograffin
to treat SBO?
Could the authors precise what were the etiologies of SBO? Did all patients have CT-Scan? Did
they exclude patients with inflammatory disease or tumors?
Could the authors described the population in term of results? How many patients required
surgery for bowel necrosis? Was suspected bowel necrosis (clinical or biological markers) a
contraindication for NIT? How many patients required surgery for bowel necrosis?
Did the authors compared NIT versus NG tube in term of success or adverse events?  Is NIT
more dangerous than NG tube? Only a randomized study coud answer this question.
The authors described many adverse events. Are they related to NIT or to SBO???
The authors report a clinical case in chapter discussion!! This should be deleted or appeared in
results chapter…
Title: Who would avoid severe adverse events from nasointestinal tube in small bowel
obstruction?—a matched case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors report the use of nasointestinal tube (NIT) to treat conservatively
patients with small bowel occlusion. The concept seems interesting but this study can’t answer
to the superiority of this treatment as compared with other conservative management. Only a
randomized study could evaluate risk and benefits of NIT.
Many points have to be addressed to improve the quality of this paper.
In the diagnosis criteria, the authors mentioned a: distended large bowel. Is it usual in patients
with SBO? In figure 6 we can see contrast in large bowel. Why? Did the authors use gastrograffin
to treat SBO?
Could the authors precise what were the etiologies of SBO? Did all patients have CT-Scan? Did
they exclude patients with inflammatory disease or tumors?
Could the authors described the population in term of results? How many patients required
surgery for bowel necrosis? Was suspected bowel necrosis (clinical or biological markers) a
contraindication for NIT? How many patients required surgery for bowel necrosis?
Did the authors compared NIT versus NG tube in term of success or adverse events?  Is NIT
more dangerous than NG tube? Only a randomized study coud answer this question.
The authors described many adverse events. Are they related to NIT or to SBO???
The authors report a clinical case in chapter discussion!! This should be deleted or appeared in
results chapter…
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Who would avoid severe adverse events from nasointestinal tube in small bowel
obstruction?—a matched case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 15 Feb 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this study, the authors report the use of nasointestinal tube (NIT) to treat conservatively
patients with small bowel occlusion. The concept seems interesting but this study can’t answer
to the superiority of this treatment as compared with other conservative management. Only a
randomized study could evaluate risk and benefits of NIT.
Many points have to be addressed to improve the quality of this paper.
In the diagnosis criteria, the authors mentioned a: distended large bowel. Is it usual in patients
with SBO? In figure 6 we can see contrast in large bowel. Why? Did the authors use gastrograffin
to treat SBO?
Could the authors precise what were the etiologies of SBO? Did all patients have CT-Scan? Did
they exclude patients with inflammatory disease or tumors?
Could the authors described the population in term of results? How many patients required
surgery for bowel necrosis? Was suspected bowel necrosis (clinical or biological markers) a
contraindication for NIT? How many patients required surgery for bowel necrosis?
Did the authors compared NIT versus NG tube in term of success or adverse events?  Is NIT
more dangerous than NG tube? Only a randomized study coud answer this question.
The authors described many adverse events. Are they related to NIT or to SBO???
The authors report a clinical case in chapter discussion!! This should be deleted or appeared in
results chapter…
assistant