Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The comparison of  capnography and epigastric auscultation to assess the accuracy of  
nasogastric tube placement in intensive care unit patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Marcos Moreira  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Minor comments  
Which capnography was evalueted: mainstream ou sidestream??  
 
Standardize references according to BMC Gastroenterology (e.g.: Mohty M, Malard F, 
Abecassis M, Aerts E, Alaskar AS, Aljurf M, Arat M, Bader P, Baron F, Bazarbachi A, et al. 
Revised diagnosis and severity criteria for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome/veno -occlusive 
disease in adult patients: a new classification from the European Society for Blood and Marrow 
Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(7):906 -12.) 
 
Result: describe all variables cited  
 
Discussion: descrebiprocurar citar de forma mais log ica e coerente os autores estudados  
 
 
Major comments  
 
Background  
Page 4, line 31 -32, the autohors said that capnography is a method to detect NG but the reference 
[13} is 2005. Is this new??  
Page 6, line 9: "Results' and not "Result"  
 
Discussion  
Page 7, lin e 4: "Haghighi Moghadam et al." There is no reference os these authors in the 
Reference.  
Line 14: "In another study by Bruns et al.", the same above; reference 5 does not match.  
Line 27: "Rahimi et al.", the same of the line 4  
Page 8, line 25, the same of the line 4. Line 45, "study" and not "stud".  
Page 8, line 58: "Therefore, it is recommended that more than one method be applied to detect 
and confirm the insertion of the NG tube." For example, which other method??  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inclu de the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able 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 inter ests, 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 c ontent 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.  
 
1. No2. No3. No4. No5. No6. No  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be p osted on the website along with the authors'  
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 comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The comparison of  capnography and epigastric auscultation to assess the accuracy of  
nasogastric tube placement in intensive care unit patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Marcos Moreira  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Minor comments  
Which capnography was evalueted: mainstream ou sidestream??  
 
Standardize references according to BMC Gastroenterology (e.g.: Mohty M, Malard F, 
Abecassis M, Aerts E, Alaskar AS, Aljurf M, Arat M, Bader P, Baron F, Bazarbachi A, et al. 
Revised diagnosis and severity criteria for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome/veno -occlusive 
disease in adult patients: a new classification from the European Society for Blood and Marrow 
Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(7):906 -12.) 
 
Result: describe all variables cited  
 
Discussion: descrebiprocurar citar de forma mais log ica e coerente os autores estudados  
 
 
Major comments  
 
Background  
Page 4, line 31 -32, the autohors said that capnography is a method to detect NG but the reference 
[13} is 2005. Is this new??  
Page 6, line 9: "Results' and not "Result"  
 
Discussion  
Page 7, lin e 4: "Haghighi Moghadam et al." There is no reference os these authors in the 
Reference.  
Line 14: "In another study by Bruns et al.", the same above; reference 5 does not match.  
Line 27: "Rahimi et al.", the same of the line 4  
Page 8, line 25, the same of the line 4. Line 45, "study" and not "stud".  
Page 8, line 58: "Therefore, it is recommended that more than one method be applied to detect 
and confirm the insertion of the NG tube." For example, which other method??  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inclu de the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able 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 inter ests, 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 c ontent 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.  
 
1. No2. No3. No4. No5. No6. No  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be p osted on the website along with the authors'  
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 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: The comparison of  capnography and epigastric auscultation to assess the accuracy of  
nasogastric tube placement in intensive care unit patients  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Feb 2020  
 
Reviewer: Marcos Moreira  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Minor comments  
Which capnography was evalueted: mainstream ou sidestream??  
 
Standardize references according to BMC Gastroenterology (e.g.: Mohty M, Malard F, 
Abecassis M, Aerts E, Alaskar AS, Aljurf M, Arat M, Bader P, Baron F, Bazarbachi A, et al. 
Revised diagnosis and severity criteria for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome/veno -occlusive 
disease in adult patients: a new classification from the European Society for Blood and Marrow 
Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(7):906 -12.) 
 
Result: describe all variables cited  
 
Discussion: descrebiprocurar citar de forma mais log ica e coerente os autores estudados  
 
 
Major comments  
 
Background  
Page 4, line 31 -32, the autohors said that capnography is a method to detect NG but the reference 
[13} is 2005. Is this new??  
Page 6, line 9: "Results' and not "Result"  
 
Discussion  
Page 7, lin e 4: "Haghighi Moghadam et al." There is no reference os these authors in the 
Reference.  
Line 14: "In another study by Bruns et al.", the same above; reference 5 does not match.  
Line 27: "Rahimi et al.", the same of the line 4  
Page 8, line 25, the same of the line 4. Line 45, "study" and not "stud".  
Page 8, line 58: "Therefore, it is recommended that more than one method be applied to detect 
and confirm the insertion of the NG tube." For example, which other method??  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work inclu de the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able 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 inter ests, 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 c ontent 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.  
 
1. No2. No3. No4. No5. No6. No  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be p osted on the website along with the authors'  
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 comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant