Title: Magnetic-Controlled Capsule Endoscopy Performance in Aging Patients
Version: 1 Date: 21 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your submitted manuscript. I enjoyed the topic and your results are interesting. I
understand this to be a single centre retrospective review of findings and procedural outcomes
using MCE in older adults, however the aim of the abstract does not match the abstract
conclusion or the aim/conclusion of the main study.
There are areas which I found surprising, such as the overall male:female ratio across the whole
cohort (as >80% were male). Comparison of GTT is also hard to assess when the capsule is
being pulled through the pylorus in some, but not others.
There were instances of poor English grammar and sentence construction which confused the
meaning of sentences. Square brackets are positioned throughout without clear rationale and
abbreviations also require checking for continuity.
Sections of the Discussion seem to depart from the themes of the manuscript (lines 224-230)
without contributing to the readers understanding.
I found it hard to interpret the safety data as the population denominator changes between
293 (the total group), and 197 (only those with complete SB studies) - which could mask SB
complications. This is further confounded by less than 20% receiving SB preparation. From the
study protocol this would suggest that SB examination was not required, or being sought in the
vast majority of those being reported on.  As a minor point my understanding from reading the
manuscript is that there were no small bowel retentions, but if this is the case it should be clearly
stated, as this is an important safety consideration. A comparison between the visualisation of
those who had PEG, versus those who had simethicone/pronase could help to clarify some of
the differences.
Overall I found this an interesting read. It confirms, as we would expect, that transit time
increases with age and response to preparation changes. This does have value, but there do
remain a few issues, as listed above.
Title: Magnetic-Controlled Capsule Endoscopy Performance in Aging Patients
Version: 1 Date: 21 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your submitted manuscript. I enjoyed the topic and your results are interesting. I
understand this to be a single centre retrospective review of findings and procedural outcomes
using MCE in older adults, however the aim of the abstract does not match the abstract
conclusion or the aim/conclusion of the main study.
There are areas which I found surprising, such as the overall male:female ratio across the whole
cohort (as >80% were male). Comparison of GTT is also hard to assess when the capsule is
being pulled through the pylorus in some, but not others.
There were instances of poor English grammar and sentence construction which confused the
meaning of sentences. Square brackets are positioned throughout without clear rationale and
abbreviations also require checking for continuity.
Sections of the Discussion seem to depart from the themes of the manuscript (lines 224-230)
without contributing to the readers understanding.
I found it hard to interpret the safety data as the population denominator changes between
293 (the total group), and 197 (only those with complete SB studies) - which could mask SB
complications. This is further confounded by less than 20% receiving SB preparation. From the
study protocol this would suggest that SB examination was not required, or being sought in the
vast majority of those being reported on.  As a minor point my understanding from reading the
manuscript is that there were no small bowel retentions, but if this is the case it should be clearly
stated, as this is an important safety consideration. A comparison between the visualisation of
those who had PEG, versus those who had simethicone/pronase could help to clarify some of
the differences.
Overall I found this an interesting read. It confirms, as we would expect, that transit time
increases with age and response to preparation changes. This does have value, but there do
remain a few issues, as listed above.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Magnetic-Controlled Capsule Endoscopy Performance in Aging Patients
Version: 1 Date: 21 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for your submitted manuscript. I enjoyed the topic and your results are interesting. I
understand this to be a single centre retrospective review of findings and procedural outcomes
using MCE in older adults, however the aim of the abstract does not match the abstract
conclusion or the aim/conclusion of the main study.
There are areas which I found surprising, such as the overall male:female ratio across the whole
cohort (as >80% were male). Comparison of GTT is also hard to assess when the capsule is
being pulled through the pylorus in some, but not others.
There were instances of poor English grammar and sentence construction which confused the
meaning of sentences. Square brackets are positioned throughout without clear rationale and
abbreviations also require checking for continuity.
Sections of the Discussion seem to depart from the themes of the manuscript (lines 224-230)
without contributing to the readers understanding.
I found it hard to interpret the safety data as the population denominator changes between
293 (the total group), and 197 (only those with complete SB studies) - which could mask SB
complications. This is further confounded by less than 20% receiving SB preparation. From the
study protocol this would suggest that SB examination was not required, or being sought in the
vast majority of those being reported on.  As a minor point my understanding from reading the
manuscript is that there were no small bowel retentions, but if this is the case it should be clearly
stated, as this is an important safety consideration. A comparison between the visualisation of
those who had PEG, versus those who had simethicone/pronase could help to clarify some of
the differences.
Overall I found this an interesting read. It confirms, as we would expect, that transit time
increases with age and response to preparation changes. This does have value, but there do
remain a few issues, as listed above.
assistant