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: 25 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: Farzad Rahmani  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear author  
 
Thank you for submitting your valuable research to the BMC Gastroenterology journal. I read 
the paper, it has good novelty, in my idea it needs major revision before further evaluation.  
 
1. English needs revision. Some sentences are too long and there are some grammatical 
errors.  
2. All keywords should be selected from Mesh database.  
 
Methods  
* How did you calculate the sample size? Please mention the formula?  
* How many ICUs did you enter  in the study? Do these ICUs affiliate to the medical 
university? Or did you just select the ICUs in the medical university hospitals?  
* Please mention the duration of the study.  
* Because of the capnography probe was designed for tracheal tube and trachea l tube is 
greater than NG tube, what was your interventions for decreasing the leak from the connection 
between NG tube and calorimetric capnography probe?  
* Were all of your patients intubated?  
* Did you have any standard level of CO2 for gastric capnogra phy (with reference)?  
* Please omit the sentences about ethical issue in the method section. Because you 
mention them in the end of paper.  
 
Results  
* Table 1  
o Please mention Saturation of O2 (%) instead of O2 pressure.  
o Please mention the unit of variable s (for example: Pulse rate/minute, Age (years))  
 
Discussion  
* What were the strong and weak points of your study?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inclu de 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 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.  
 
'I declare that I have no co mpeting interests  
 
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: 25 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: Farzad Rahmani  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear author  
 
Thank you for submitting your valuable research to the BMC Gastroenterology journal. I read 
the paper, it has good novelty, in my idea it needs major revision before further evaluation.  
 
1. English needs revision. Some sentences are too long and there are some grammatical 
errors.  
2. All keywords should be selected from Mesh database.  
 
Methods  
* How did you calculate the sample size? Please mention the formula?  
* How many ICUs did you enter  in the study? Do these ICUs affiliate to the medical 
university? Or did you just select the ICUs in the medical university hospitals?  
* Please mention the duration of the study.  
* Because of the capnography probe was designed for tracheal tube and trachea l tube is 
greater than NG tube, what was your interventions for decreasing the leak from the connection 
between NG tube and calorimetric capnography probe?  
* Were all of your patients intubated?  
* Did you have any standard level of CO2 for gastric capnogra phy (with reference)?  
* Please omit the sentences about ethical issue in the method section. Because you 
mention them in the end of paper.  
 
Results  
* Table 1  
o Please mention Saturation of O2 (%) instead of O2 pressure.  
o Please mention the unit of variable s (for example: Pulse rate/minute, Age (years))  
 
Discussion  
* What were the strong and weak points of your study?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inclu de 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 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.  
 
'I declare that I have no co mpeting interests  
 
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: 25 Jan 2020  
 
Reviewer: Farzad Rahmani  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear author  
 
Thank you for submitting your valuable research to the BMC Gastroenterology journal. I read 
the paper, it has good novelty, in my idea it needs major revision before further evaluation.  
 
1. English needs revision. Some sentences are too long and there are some grammatical 
errors.  
2. All keywords should be selected from Mesh database.  
 
Methods  
* How did you calculate the sample size? Please mention the formula?  
* How many ICUs did you enter  in the study? Do these ICUs affiliate to the medical 
university? Or did you just select the ICUs in the medical university hospitals?  
* Please mention the duration of the study.  
* Because of the capnography probe was designed for tracheal tube and trachea l tube is 
greater than NG tube, what was your interventions for decreasing the leak from the connection 
between NG tube and calorimetric capnography probe?  
* Were all of your patients intubated?  
* Did you have any standard level of CO2 for gastric capnogra phy (with reference)?  
* Please omit the sentences about ethical issue in the method section. Because you 
mention them in the end of paper.  
 
Results  
* Table 1  
o Please mention Saturation of O2 (%) instead of O2 pressure.  
o Please mention the unit of variable s (for example: Pulse rate/minute, Age (years))  
 
Discussion  
* What were the strong and weak points of your study?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Does the work inclu de 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 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.  
 
'I declare that I have no co mpeting interests  
 
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