Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Validation of a New Risk Score System for Non -variceal Upper  Gastrointestinal Bleeding  
 
Version: 2 Date: 29 May 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objecti ve 
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in  the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretati on/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contrib ution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: * Have the authors responded adequately to each of the questions or 
concerns you raised  in your comments?  
 
YES  
 
* Have they also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself?  
 
YES, all are adequate.  I question the use of 'properly' on line 282 - should this be 'promptly', or 
just delete it?   
 
* What is your overall impression of the revised manuscript?  
 
Suitable for publication, I recommend a thorough copy edit before publication.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
Recommend a thorough copy edit by the journal, at the editor's discretion of course.  Please see 
my comment on line 282.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include 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 speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written Engli sh 
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 interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat 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 recei ved 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 i nterests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Sq uare. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a sma ll honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creat ive 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 w ill not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed 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 publish my name with my report.  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Validation of a New Risk Score System for Non -variceal Upper  Gastrointestinal Bleeding  
 
Version: 2 Date: 29 May 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objecti ve 
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in  the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretati on/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contrib ution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: * Have the authors responded adequately to each of the questions or 
concerns you raised  in your comments?  
 
YES  
 
* Have they also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself?  
 
YES, all are adequate.  I question the use of 'properly' on line 282 - should this be 'promptly', or 
just delete it?   
 
* What is your overall impression of the revised manuscript?  
 
Suitable for publication, I recommend a thorough copy edit before publication.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
Recommend a thorough copy edit by the journal, at the editor's discretion of course.  Please see 
my comment on line 282.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include 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 speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written Engli sh 
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 interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat 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 recei ved 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 i nterests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Sq uare. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a sma ll honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creat ive 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 w ill not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed 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 publish my name with my report.  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Validation of a New Risk Score System for Non -variceal Upper  Gastrointestinal Bleeding  
 
Version: 2 Date: 29 May 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
 
Yes - there is a clear objecti ve 
 
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
 
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in  the results?  
 
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
 
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretati on/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
 
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contrib ution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
 
Yes - current version is technically sound  
 
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: * Have the authors responded adequately to each of the questions or 
concerns you raised  in your comments?  
 
YES  
 
* Have they also made changes to reflect their responses in the manuscript itself?  
 
YES, all are adequate.  I question the use of 'properly' on line 282 - should this be 'promptly', or 
just delete it?   
 
* What is your overall impression of the revised manuscript?  
 
Suitable for publication, I recommend a thorough copy edit before publication.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
Recommend a thorough copy edit by the journal, at the editor's discretion of course.  Please see 
my comment on line 282.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include 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 speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written Engli sh 
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 interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares  in an organisation t hat 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 recei ved 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 i nterests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Sq uare. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a sma ll honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creat ive 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 w ill not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed 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 publish my name with my report.  
assistant