Title: Esophageal motility disorders in symptomatic patients and its relation to age
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective analytical study to understand esophageal motility disorders in
symptomatic patients and is relation to age. It is a very interesting study, with great
methodology to explain esophageal motility disorders. Congratulations for your efforts and
science contribution.
1) A language revision should be done. Some phrases are confusing.
Example: Lower basal lower esophageal sphincter tone.
2) The introduction is excessively long and repetitive. The objective of the study is to search
for a relation between age, symptoms, and motility disorder. It isn´t necessary to describe all
the diseases and elderly frails.
3) Inclusion criteria was symptomatic patients who were submitted to Upper digestive
endoscopy. It should be interesting to describe the UDE findings an its relations to symptoms
and manometry.
4) The authors inclusion criteria was symptoms like heartburn, dysphagia, dyspepsia,
odynophagia, and GERD symptoms. What you mind when talking about GERD Symptoms?
Heartburn and dysphagia are esophageal GERD symptoms. I would like to understand better
what are the “GERD symptoms”.
5) In the elderly group the prevalent symptom was dysphagia, statically much higher than
the youngers. It could be a BIAS when interpretating the results. At the same time, elderly
related diseases and medications should interfere with the symptoms and maybe the manometric
findings. Another BIAS. My recommendation is to call attention to this potential weakness in
the study.
Minor
1) Were all the selected patients able to be submitted to esophageal manometry? We know that
this is a study that sometimes are difficult to perform, and patients may not tolerate then.
2) The conclusions should focus on the relation between symptoms and Manometric findings.
Maybe elderly have more dysphagia related to achalasia and other related diseases which can
explain the different manometric findings comparing to the “A” group. A conclusion paragraph
should be written to elucidate the topic.
3) The writing structure is sometime confusing. Maybe, it should be better to be more concise
and logical in the text organization.
Title: Esophageal motility disorders in symptomatic patients and its relation to age
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective analytical study to understand esophageal motility disorders in
symptomatic patients and is relation to age. It is a very interesting study, with great
methodology to explain esophageal motility disorders. Congratulations for your efforts and
science contribution.
1) A language revision should be done. Some phrases are confusing.
Example: Lower basal lower esophageal sphincter tone.
2) The introduction is excessively long and repetitive. The objective of the study is to search
for a relation between age, symptoms, and motility disorder. It isn´t necessary to describe all
the diseases and elderly frails.
3) Inclusion criteria was symptomatic patients who were submitted to Upper digestive
endoscopy. It should be interesting to describe the UDE findings an its relations to symptoms
and manometry.
4) The authors inclusion criteria was symptoms like heartburn, dysphagia, dyspepsia,
odynophagia, and GERD symptoms. What you mind when talking about GERD Symptoms?
Heartburn and dysphagia are esophageal GERD symptoms. I would like to understand better
what are the “GERD symptoms”.
5) In the elderly group the prevalent symptom was dysphagia, statically much higher than
the youngers. It could be a BIAS when interpretating the results. At the same time, elderly
related diseases and medications should interfere with the symptoms and maybe the manometric
findings. Another BIAS. My recommendation is to call attention to this potential weakness in
the study.
Minor
1) Were all the selected patients able to be submitted to esophageal manometry? We know that
this is a study that sometimes are difficult to perform, and patients may not tolerate then.
2) The conclusions should focus on the relation between symptoms and Manometric findings.
Maybe elderly have more dysphagia related to achalasia and other related diseases which can
explain the different manometric findings comparing to the “A” group. A conclusion paragraph
should be written to elucidate the topic.
3) The writing structure is sometime confusing. Maybe, it should be better to be more concise
and logical in the text organization.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Esophageal motility disorders in symptomatic patients and its relation to age
Version: 3 Date: 28 Jan 2023
Reviewer's report:
This is a prospective analytical study to understand esophageal motility disorders in
symptomatic patients and is relation to age. It is a very interesting study, with great
methodology to explain esophageal motility disorders. Congratulations for your efforts and
science contribution.
1) A language revision should be done. Some phrases are confusing.
Example: Lower basal lower esophageal sphincter tone.
2) The introduction is excessively long and repetitive. The objective of the study is to search
for a relation between age, symptoms, and motility disorder. It isn´t necessary to describe all
the diseases and elderly frails.
3) Inclusion criteria was symptomatic patients who were submitted to Upper digestive
endoscopy. It should be interesting to describe the UDE findings an its relations to symptoms
and manometry.
4) The authors inclusion criteria was symptoms like heartburn, dysphagia, dyspepsia,
odynophagia, and GERD symptoms. What you mind when talking about GERD Symptoms?
Heartburn and dysphagia are esophageal GERD symptoms. I would like to understand better
what are the “GERD symptoms”.
5) In the elderly group the prevalent symptom was dysphagia, statically much higher than
the youngers. It could be a BIAS when interpretating the results. At the same time, elderly
related diseases and medications should interfere with the symptoms and maybe the manometric
findings. Another BIAS. My recommendation is to call attention to this potential weakness in
the study.
Minor
1) Were all the selected patients able to be submitted to esophageal manometry? We know that
this is a study that sometimes are difficult to perform, and patients may not tolerate then.
2) The conclusions should focus on the relation between symptoms and Manometric findings.
Maybe elderly have more dysphagia related to achalasia and other related diseases which can
explain the different manometric findings comparing to the “A” group. A conclusion paragraph
should be written to elucidate the topic.
3) The writing structure is sometime confusing. Maybe, it should be better to be more concise
and logical in the text organization.
assistant