Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison of nutrition screening tools to assess nutrit ional risk and predict clinical 
outcomes in Mexican patients with digestive diseas es 
 
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The review of COMPARISON OF NUTRITIONAL SCREENING TOOLS TO ASSESS 
NUTRITIONAL RISK AND PREDICT CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN MEXICAN PATIENTS 
WITH DIGESTIVE DISEASES". Here are comment : 
 
—In the abstract, the abbreviated words should be written in full first  
— The introduction need to some remake. There are lots of repetition of sentence e.g. line 10 -12 
and 20 -22 page 2.  
—Authors should write more on SGA, NRS -2002 and CONUT in introduct ion by indicating 
more on those tools used and state the previous articles in regarded to their recent work. Very 
important  
—The authors assays for albumin and cholesterol in this manuscript. Kindly indicate how you 
collected the blood and serum of the par ticipants and how you carryout the procedure for those 
parameters  
—The authors should explain the significance of NRS -2002 and SGA on nutritional risk over 
CONUT and also compare with previously published articles in regarded to your recent work.  
—You shou ld give more details on line 33 -36, page 16.  
—Authors should explain the role of albumin and cholesterol in this manuscript because they 
were mentioned in the result table 1 without reflecting in the discussion section.  
 
 
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.  
 
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 received 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 al l of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the jo urnal. 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 authors' 
responses. I agree fo r 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Comparison of nutrition screening tools to assess nutrit ional risk and predict clinical 
outcomes in Mexican patients with digestive diseas es 
 
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The review of COMPARISON OF NUTRITIONAL SCREENING TOOLS TO ASSESS 
NUTRITIONAL RISK AND PREDICT CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN MEXICAN PATIENTS 
WITH DIGESTIVE DISEASES". Here are comment : 
 
—In the abstract, the abbreviated words should be written in full first  
— The introduction need to some remake. There are lots of repetition of sentence e.g. line 10 -12 
and 20 -22 page 2.  
—Authors should write more on SGA, NRS -2002 and CONUT in introduct ion by indicating 
more on those tools used and state the previous articles in regarded to their recent work. Very 
important  
—The authors assays for albumin and cholesterol in this manuscript. Kindly indicate how you 
collected the blood and serum of the par ticipants and how you carryout the procedure for those 
parameters  
—The authors should explain the significance of NRS -2002 and SGA on nutritional risk over 
CONUT and also compare with previously published articles in regarded to your recent work.  
—You shou ld give more details on line 33 -36, page 16.  
—Authors should explain the role of albumin and cholesterol in this manuscript because they 
were mentioned in the result table 1 without reflecting in the discussion section.  
 
 
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.  
 
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 received 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 al l of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the jo urnal. 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 authors' 
responses. I agree fo r 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
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: Comparison of nutrition screening tools to assess nutrit ional risk and predict clinical 
outcomes in Mexican patients with digestive diseas es 
 
Version: 1 Date: 05 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Quadri Alabi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The review of COMPARISON OF NUTRITIONAL SCREENING TOOLS TO ASSESS 
NUTRITIONAL RISK AND PREDICT CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN MEXICAN PATIENTS 
WITH DIGESTIVE DISEASES". Here are comment : 
 
—In the abstract, the abbreviated words should be written in full first  
— The introduction need to some remake. There are lots of repetition of sentence e.g. line 10 -12 
and 20 -22 page 2.  
—Authors should write more on SGA, NRS -2002 and CONUT in introduct ion by indicating 
more on those tools used and state the previous articles in regarded to their recent work. Very 
important  
—The authors assays for albumin and cholesterol in this manuscript. Kindly indicate how you 
collected the blood and serum of the par ticipants and how you carryout the procedure for those 
parameters  
—The authors should explain the significance of NRS -2002 and SGA on nutritional risk over 
CONUT and also compare with previously published articles in regarded to your recent work.  
—You shou ld give more details on line 33 -36, page 16.  
—Authors should explain the role of albumin and cholesterol in this manuscript because they 
were mentioned in the result table 1 without reflecting in the discussion section.  
 
 
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.  
 
I am ab le to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 received 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 al l of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the jo urnal. 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 authors' 
responses. I agree fo r 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant