Title: Prediction of the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding and new score model: A retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your research about a retrospective study, prediction of
the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and new score
model. It is interesting for our readers of BMC gastroenterology, and I believe that your findings
are important in a clinical setting, however, your manuscript has several concerns which should
be addressed.
Major points
1. It is difficult to conclude as in lines 41 and 42 because the endpoints of the scores created
from this study are different from the endpoints of the respective scores in the past, and therefore
it is difficult to compare them.
We believe that the conclusion in lines 290 - 293 is better.
2. Since this HB score was only intenal validation, I believe that validation with another cohort
would be a more objective way to evaluate the HB score.
3. Since the endpoint was endoscopic hemostasis, the score may be valid in Japan, where
endoscopy is relatively available immediately, but may not be useful overseas, where endoscopy
is not available immediately.
4. Regarding the HB score, why is BUN scored 2 while the other items are scored 1? It seems
to me that the scoring system is not stated in the text.
5. Question for the author. Hypothetically, would you not perform an endoscopy when the HB
score is 0, 1, or 2?
Presumably, endoscopy would be performed in Japan. Would it be clinically important to predict
whether or not endoscopic hemostasis would be performed at that time?
Minor points
1. What are the details of the method used to perform endoscopic hemostasis?
2. What are the details of the disease requiring endoscopic hemostasis?
3. Do you have a collection of cases with symptoms and endoscopy performed within 6 hours?
It would be easier for the readers to understand if you made a flowchart Figure.
4. Line 78 our HB score is mentioned, but since it is the first time the word is used and it is
considered to interfere with reading comprehension, we think it should not be mentioned in the
background.
5. I think the font of sore in table 3 and table 5 is different.
6. Table 7 endoscopic therapist is listed, but isn't it a mistake for endoscopic therapy?
7. I don't think we need the p value listed for BUN in Table 8.
While Table 8 is the important data, I think there are items that could be removed to make it a
little more understandable to the reader.
8. The statements in lines 180 and 181 should be deleted because they are methods, not results.
Title: Prediction of the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding and new score model: A retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your research about a retrospective study, prediction of
the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and new score
model. It is interesting for our readers of BMC gastroenterology, and I believe that your findings
are important in a clinical setting, however, your manuscript has several concerns which should
be addressed.
Major points
1. It is difficult to conclude as in lines 41 and 42 because the endpoints of the scores created
from this study are different from the endpoints of the respective scores in the past, and therefore
it is difficult to compare them.
We believe that the conclusion in lines 290 - 293 is better.
2. Since this HB score was only intenal validation, I believe that validation with another cohort
would be a more objective way to evaluate the HB score.
3. Since the endpoint was endoscopic hemostasis, the score may be valid in Japan, where
endoscopy is relatively available immediately, but may not be useful overseas, where endoscopy
is not available immediately.
4. Regarding the HB score, why is BUN scored 2 while the other items are scored 1? It seems
to me that the scoring system is not stated in the text.
5. Question for the author. Hypothetically, would you not perform an endoscopy when the HB
score is 0, 1, or 2?
Presumably, endoscopy would be performed in Japan. Would it be clinically important to predict
whether or not endoscopic hemostasis would be performed at that time?
Minor points
1. What are the details of the method used to perform endoscopic hemostasis?
2. What are the details of the disease requiring endoscopic hemostasis?
3. Do you have a collection of cases with symptoms and endoscopy performed within 6 hours?
It would be easier for the readers to understand if you made a flowchart Figure.
4. Line 78 our HB score is mentioned, but since it is the first time the word is used and it is
considered to interfere with reading comprehension, we think it should not be mentioned in the
background.
5. I think the font of sore in table 3 and table 5 is different.
6. Table 7 endoscopic therapist is listed, but isn't it a mistake for endoscopic therapy?
7. I don't think we need the p value listed for BUN in Table 8.
While Table 8 is the important data, I think there are items that could be removed to make it a
little more understandable to the reader.
8. The statements in lines 180 and 181 should be deleted because they are methods, not results.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prediction of the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding and new score model: A retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your research about a retrospective study, prediction of
the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and new score
model. It is interesting for our readers of BMC gastroenterology, and I believe that your findings
are important in a clinical setting, however, your manuscript has several concerns which should
be addressed.
Major points
1. It is difficult to conclude as in lines 41 and 42 because the endpoints of the scores created
from this study are different from the endpoints of the respective scores in the past, and therefore
it is difficult to compare them.
We believe that the conclusion in lines 290 - 293 is better.
2. Since this HB score was only intenal validation, I believe that validation with another cohort
would be a more objective way to evaluate the HB score.
3. Since the endpoint was endoscopic hemostasis, the score may be valid in Japan, where
endoscopy is relatively available immediately, but may not be useful overseas, where endoscopy
is not available immediately.
4. Regarding the HB score, why is BUN scored 2 while the other items are scored 1? It seems
to me that the scoring system is not stated in the text.
5. Question for the author. Hypothetically, would you not perform an endoscopy when the HB
score is 0, 1, or 2?
Presumably, endoscopy would be performed in Japan. Would it be clinically important to predict
whether or not endoscopic hemostasis would be performed at that time?
Minor points
1. What are the details of the method used to perform endoscopic hemostasis?
2. What are the details of the disease requiring endoscopic hemostasis?
3. Do you have a collection of cases with symptoms and endoscopy performed within 6 hours?
It would be easier for the readers to understand if you made a flowchart Figure.
4. Line 78 our HB score is mentioned, but since it is the first time the word is used and it is
considered to interfere with reading comprehension, we think it should not be mentioned in the
background.
5. I think the font of sore in table 3 and table 5 is different.
6. Table 7 endoscopic therapist is listed, but isn't it a mistake for endoscopic therapy?
7. I don't think we need the p value listed for BUN in Table 8.
While Table 8 is the important data, I think there are items that could be removed to make it a
little more understandable to the reader.
8. The statements in lines 180 and 181 should be deleted because they are methods, not results.
assistant