Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Conservative Recovery and Replacement of a R uptured Percutaneous Endoscopic 
Gastrostomy Tube; a case report  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have 
educational value, or highlight the need for  a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic 
approaches?  
 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge  
 
 
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the 
patient's symptoms and course of treatment?   
 
Yes, the description of the case is sufficient  
 
 
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis, 
interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?  
 
Yes, the work described is medically sound  
 
 
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the 
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? 
Has an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been include d? 
 
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technically sound contribution?  
 
Yes, this case report is suitable for publication  
 
 
PEER REV IEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: I would like to thank the authors for sharing their case report which 
is very interesting. It is not something that we see everyday. I find authors clearly described the 
case and they outlined the need for publication of  this report.  
 
There are very few case reports about ruptured PEG. It is not the single or first one but one of 
very few (authors mentioned it is the only one in the introduction)  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
I would appreciate few lines in the discussion abou t the possible cause of the PEG rupture and 
their recommendations to avoid this complication.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
I would appreciate few lines in the discussion about the possible causes of this complication  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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 recei ved 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 financial 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Lic ense 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
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 comme nts 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Conservative Recovery and Replacement of a R uptured Percutaneous Endoscopic 
Gastrostomy Tube; a case report  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have 
educational value, or highlight the need for  a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic 
approaches?  
 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge  
 
 
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the 
patient's symptoms and course of treatment?   
 
Yes, the description of the case is sufficient  
 
 
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis, 
interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?  
 
Yes, the work described is medically sound  
 
 
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the 
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? 
Has an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been include d? 
 
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technically sound contribution?  
 
Yes, this case report is suitable for publication  
 
 
PEER REV IEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: I would like to thank the authors for sharing their case report which 
is very interesting. It is not something that we see everyday. I find authors clearly described the 
case and they outlined the need for publication of  this report.  
 
There are very few case reports about ruptured PEG. It is not the single or first one but one of 
very few (authors mentioned it is the only one in the introduction)  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
I would appreciate few lines in the discussion abou t the possible cause of the PEG rupture and 
their recommendations to avoid this complication.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
I would appreciate few lines in the discussion about the possible causes of this complication  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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 recei ved 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 financial 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Lic ense 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
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 comme nts 
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: Conservative Recovery and Replacement of a R uptured Percutaneous Endoscopic 
Gastrostomy Tube; a case report  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
RELEVANCE - Does this case report make a contribution to medical knowledge, have 
educational value, or highlight the need for  a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic 
approaches?  
 
Yes, this report contributes to medical knowledge  
 
 
CASE DESCRIPTION - Are the details of the case sufficiently well described to understand the 
patient's symptoms and course of treatment?   
 
Yes, the description of the case is sufficient  
 
 
DIAGNOSIS/INTERPRETATION - Based on the facts presented, are the diagnosis, 
interpretation, and course of treatment medically sound?  
 
Yes, the work described is medically sound  
 
 
DISCUSSION OF THE CASE - Does the discussion appropriately analyse the importance of the 
findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment? 
Has an adequate literature review pertinent to the case been include d? 
 
Yes, the case is discussed fully in the context of the literature  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Could an appropriately REVISED version of this 
work represent a technically sound contribution?  
 
Yes, this case report is suitable for publication  
 
 
PEER REV IEWER COMMENTS:  
GENERAL COMMENTS: I would like to thank the authors for sharing their case report which 
is very interesting. It is not something that we see everyday. I find authors clearly described the 
case and they outlined the need for publication of  this report.  
 
There are very few case reports about ruptured PEG. It is not the single or first one but one of 
very few (authors mentioned it is the only one in the introduction)  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
I would appreciate few lines in the discussion abou t the possible cause of the PEG rupture and 
their recommendations to avoid this complication.  
 
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
 
I would appreciate few lines in the discussion about the possible causes of this complication  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either 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 recei ved 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 financial 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Lic ense 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the autho rs' 
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 comme nts 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant