Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel capsule endoscopy for upper and mid-GI tract: the UMGI capsule
Version: 
1 
Date: 
01 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting, simple and nice pilot study about a novel upper and mid
gastrointestinal (UMGI) magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy device with
a detachable string (DS-MCE).
This study is valuable because generates interesting issues to be resolved in
future research.
The R1 manuscript has much improved, is concise and well written, data are
presented in a clear way, Discussion is consistent with the study data.
Therefore, I offer just a few suggestions that may be considered by the Authors
to improve the strength of the manuscript.
In my opinion the sentence "… especially in patients with GI bleeding and
taking antithrombotic or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory Drugs…" is misplaced
throughout the manuscript.
It is certainly true that patients presenting with GI bleeding and taking
antithrombotic therapy or who are on NSAIDS after a negative bi-directional
endoscopy will be candidates for a capsule endoscopy (e.g. the recent ESGE
VCE and DAE guideline, Endoscopy 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1055/a-1973-3796.
Online ahead of print), but the study was not about these cases.
The study did not specifically enroll patients based on these inclusion criteria,
therefore it will be more appropriate to state that the DS-MCE "might be
indicated" in cases of suspect upper and small bowel GI bleeding, possibly
associated with or due to the use of anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy, use of
NAIDS…
The authors can certainly discuss the possible value of the DS-MCE in these
instances, and what is reported at page 4 ( lines 41-49) is correct, but the
affirmation that the DS-MCE is especially indicated in these cases should be
removed from the conclusions in the Abstract and in Discussion.
Page 4, line 8, consider removing the sentence "repeated endoscopy", the correct
flow suggested by e.g. the ESGE VCE and DAE guideline (that the authors
might not be aware of because published a few days ago) is to perform a small-
bowel capsule endoscopy as the next examination after a negative bi-directional
endoscopy.
Page 4, lines 1-10 and lines 41-49 are redundant, consider merging and
summarizing within a single sentence.
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, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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.
No conflict to declare
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel capsule endoscopy for upper and mid-GI tract: the UMGI capsule
Version: 
1 
Date: 
01 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting, simple and nice pilot study about a novel upper and mid
gastrointestinal (UMGI) magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy device with
a detachable string (DS-MCE).
This study is valuable because generates interesting issues to be resolved in
future research.
The R1 manuscript has much improved, is concise and well written, data are
presented in a clear way, Discussion is consistent with the study data.
Therefore, I offer just a few suggestions that may be considered by the Authors
to improve the strength of the manuscript.
In my opinion the sentence "… especially in patients with GI bleeding and
taking antithrombotic or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory Drugs…" is misplaced
throughout the manuscript.
It is certainly true that patients presenting with GI bleeding and taking
antithrombotic therapy or who are on NSAIDS after a negative bi-directional
endoscopy will be candidates for a capsule endoscopy (e.g. the recent ESGE
VCE and DAE guideline, Endoscopy 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1055/a-1973-3796.
Online ahead of print), but the study was not about these cases.
The study did not specifically enroll patients based on these inclusion criteria,
therefore it will be more appropriate to state that the DS-MCE "might be
indicated" in cases of suspect upper and small bowel GI bleeding, possibly
associated with or due to the use of anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy, use of
NAIDS…
The authors can certainly discuss the possible value of the DS-MCE in these
instances, and what is reported at page 4 ( lines 41-49) is correct, but the
affirmation that the DS-MCE is especially indicated in these cases should be
removed from the conclusions in the Abstract and in Discussion.
Page 4, line 8, consider removing the sentence "repeated endoscopy", the correct
flow suggested by e.g. the ESGE VCE and DAE guideline (that the authors
might not be aware of because published a few days ago) is to perform a small-
bowel capsule endoscopy as the next examination after a negative bi-directional
endoscopy.
Page 4, lines 1-10 and lines 41-49 are redundant, consider merging and
summarizing within a single sentence.
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, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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.
No conflict to declare
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel capsule endoscopy for upper and mid-GI tract: the UMGI capsule
Version: 
1 
Date: 
01 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting, simple and nice pilot study about a novel upper and mid
gastrointestinal (UMGI) magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy device with
a detachable string (DS-MCE).
This study is valuable because generates interesting issues to be resolved in
future research.
The R1 manuscript has much improved, is concise and well written, data are
presented in a clear way, Discussion is consistent with the study data.
Therefore, I offer just a few suggestions that may be considered by the Authors
to improve the strength of the manuscript.
In my opinion the sentence "… especially in patients with GI bleeding and
taking antithrombotic or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory Drugs…" is misplaced
throughout the manuscript.
It is certainly true that patients presenting with GI bleeding and taking
antithrombotic therapy or who are on NSAIDS after a negative bi-directional
endoscopy will be candidates for a capsule endoscopy (e.g. the recent ESGE
VCE and DAE guideline, Endoscopy 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1055/a-1973-3796.
Online ahead of print), but the study was not about these cases.
The study did not specifically enroll patients based on these inclusion criteria,
therefore it will be more appropriate to state that the DS-MCE "might be
indicated" in cases of suspect upper and small bowel GI bleeding, possibly
associated with or due to the use of anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy, use of
NAIDS…
The authors can certainly discuss the possible value of the DS-MCE in these
instances, and what is reported at page 4 ( lines 41-49) is correct, but the
affirmation that the DS-MCE is especially indicated in these cases should be
removed from the conclusions in the Abstract and in Discussion.
Page 4, line 8, consider removing the sentence "repeated endoscopy", the correct
flow suggested by e.g. the ESGE VCE and DAE guideline (that the authors
might not be aware of because published a few days ago) is to perform a small-
bowel capsule endoscopy as the next examination after a negative bi-directional
endoscopy.
Page 4, lines 1-10 and lines 41-49 are redundant, consider merging and
summarizing within a single sentence.
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, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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.
No conflict to declare
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (a subsidiary of
Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, please
click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the
“Review Data”) will then be transmitted to Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “Publons”), they will notify you of the receipt of this
review and update your profile as per your settings and their policy. If you are
not registered with Web of Science, you will receive an email from them asking
you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify
candidate reviewers. Please find the details of processing in Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
Yes
assistant