Reviewer's report 
 Comparison Between Oral Omeprazole and Intra-venous Cimetidine in Reducing some Title: 
Complications of Duodenal Peptic Ulcers 
 1  28 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Xavier Calvet Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. English needs an extensive review. 
2. Reporting data should comply with the requirements of the CONSORT statement. This consensus 
document establishes the standard guidelines for reporting clinical trials. It is available by internet 
and has been published by the major journals. 
Particular points: 
The review of the scientific evidence is incomplete. Recent reviews (as the recent meta-analysis 
published in BMJ this year or the Cochrane review on the topic should be cited and commented in 
the introduction and discussion). 
The material and methods require extensive review: 
The randomization and the allocation concealment methods should be given. 
Details on endoscopic treatment should be given. In addition, and importantly, the number of 
endoscopically treated patients in each group is an very important data to be given. 
Reports of endoscopic stigmata should be done according to the Forrest classification. The actual 
classification (table II) is incorrect, as spurting or oozing bleeding are subgroups of the active bleeding groups, not separate categories. 
The rate of rebeeding in the cimetidine group is tremendously high (50%). This may be because the 
loose criteria for rebleeding used in the study. I suggest including in the report an analysis using more standard criteria for rebleeding as, for example, any of the used in the study associated to either endoscopic confirmation of rebleeding or need for surgery. 
The number of patients that required a second endoscopic treatment should also be stated. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 Comparison Between Oral Omeprazole and Intra-venous Cimetidine in Reducing some Title: 
Complications of Duodenal Peptic Ulcers 
 1  28 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Xavier Calvet Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. English needs an extensive review. 
2. Reporting data should comply with the requirements of the CONSORT statement. This consensus 
document establishes the standard guidelines for reporting clinical trials. It is available by internet 
and has been published by the major journals. 
Particular points: 
The review of the scientific evidence is incomplete. Recent reviews (as the recent meta-analysis 
published in BMJ this year or the Cochrane review on the topic should be cited and commented in 
the introduction and discussion). 
The material and methods require extensive review: 
The randomization and the allocation concealment methods should be given. 
Details on endoscopic treatment should be given. In addition, and importantly, the number of 
endoscopically treated patients in each group is an very important data to be given. 
Reports of endoscopic stigmata should be done according to the Forrest classification. The actual 
classification (table II) is incorrect, as spurting or oozing bleeding are subgroups of the active bleeding groups, not separate categories. 
The rate of rebeeding in the cimetidine group is tremendously high (50%). This may be because the 
loose criteria for rebleeding used in the study. I suggest including in the report an analysis using more standard criteria for rebleeding as, for example, any of the used in the study associated to either endoscopic confirmation of rebleeding or need for surgery. 
The number of patients that required a second endoscopic treatment should also be stated. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Comparison Between Oral Omeprazole and Intra-venous Cimetidine in Reducing some Title: 
Complications of Duodenal Peptic Ulcers 
 1  28 March 2005 Version: Date: 
 Xavier Calvet Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
1. English needs an extensive review. 
2. Reporting data should comply with the requirements of the CONSORT statement. This consensus 
document establishes the standard guidelines for reporting clinical trials. It is available by internet 
and has been published by the major journals. 
Particular points: 
The review of the scientific evidence is incomplete. Recent reviews (as the recent meta-analysis 
published in BMJ this year or the Cochrane review on the topic should be cited and commented in 
the introduction and discussion). 
The material and methods require extensive review: 
The randomization and the allocation concealment methods should be given. 
Details on endoscopic treatment should be given. In addition, and importantly, the number of 
endoscopically treated patients in each group is an very important data to be given. 
Reports of endoscopic stigmata should be done according to the Forrest classification. The actual 
classification (table II) is incorrect, as spurting or oozing bleeding are subgroups of the active bleeding groups, not separate categories. 
The rate of rebeeding in the cimetidine group is tremendously high (50%). This may be because the 
loose criteria for rebleeding used in the study. I suggest including in the report an analysis using more standard criteria for rebleeding as, for example, any of the used in the study associated to either endoscopic confirmation of rebleeding or need for surgery. 
The number of patients that required a second endoscopic treatment should also be stated. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research Level of interest: 
interests 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant