Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel capsule endoscopy for upper and mid-GI tract: the UMGI capsule
Version: 
1 
Date: 
20 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have read a revised version of the paper by Bin Jiang et al. about a novel string
and magnetic controlled capsule endoscopy for the study of upper and
intermediate gastrointestinal tract. 
While "standard" capsule endoscopy systems available offer a good visualization
of small bowel, the lack of control on capsule movements makes study of the
upper GI tract unreliable. Specifically designed capsules for the upper GI tract
are therefore awaited and could offer an alternative to standard upper GI
endoscopy.
The topic of the paper is therefore potentially interesting; however, the paper has
some problems that reduce its suitability for publication.
- Firsts of all, I found the paper absolutely difficult to read because of serious
linguistic problems. The authors claimed to have performed a linguistic revision,
but the second version of the paper is not so different from the first one and
many sentences are really painful to read. A serious and extensive review with
the help of an English mother-tongue reviewer is absolutely mandatory
(basically I think that almost the entire paper should be completely rewritten). 
From a clinical point of view, I agree with some of the observations already
performed by the other two reviewers. Overall, I think that the use of this capsule
to study the upper GI tract has several limitations
- While the new capsule system seems to have good diagnostic performances
compared to standard endoscopy (even if the use of healthy volunteers reduces
the strength of this statement), I see a lot of important drawbacks in terms of
comfort and organizational aspects. For example:
o Preparation: patients need to drink a large quantity of water (1 liter) in only 10
minutes before the procedure
o Very long duration of the study of UGI tract (around 20 minutes)
o Discomfort linked to the continuous movements of the string (a completely
magnetically controlled capsule would be much more comfortable)
- As already discussed, the impossibility to take biopsies is a major drawback as
compared to standard gastroscopy
Finally, I really do not understand why not all the patients underwent study of
the small bowel. Even if the authors did not feel useful in some patients to study
the small bowel, once the capsule was used I do not see the point in not
performing enteroscopy, considering the characteristics of this study (pilot study
for a new device).
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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, 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
content 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.
No competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) 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 will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published 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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel capsule endoscopy for upper and mid-GI tract: the UMGI capsule
Version: 
1 
Date: 
20 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have read a revised version of the paper by Bin Jiang et al. about a novel string
and magnetic controlled capsule endoscopy for the study of upper and
intermediate gastrointestinal tract. 
While "standard" capsule endoscopy systems available offer a good visualization
of small bowel, the lack of control on capsule movements makes study of the
upper GI tract unreliable. Specifically designed capsules for the upper GI tract
are therefore awaited and could offer an alternative to standard upper GI
endoscopy.
The topic of the paper is therefore potentially interesting; however, the paper has
some problems that reduce its suitability for publication.
- Firsts of all, I found the paper absolutely difficult to read because of serious
linguistic problems. The authors claimed to have performed a linguistic revision,
but the second version of the paper is not so different from the first one and
many sentences are really painful to read. A serious and extensive review with
the help of an English mother-tongue reviewer is absolutely mandatory
(basically I think that almost the entire paper should be completely rewritten). 
From a clinical point of view, I agree with some of the observations already
performed by the other two reviewers. Overall, I think that the use of this capsule
to study the upper GI tract has several limitations
- While the new capsule system seems to have good diagnostic performances
compared to standard endoscopy (even if the use of healthy volunteers reduces
the strength of this statement), I see a lot of important drawbacks in terms of
comfort and organizational aspects. For example:
o Preparation: patients need to drink a large quantity of water (1 liter) in only 10
minutes before the procedure
o Very long duration of the study of UGI tract (around 20 minutes)
o Discomfort linked to the continuous movements of the string (a completely
magnetically controlled capsule would be much more comfortable)
- As already discussed, the impossibility to take biopsies is a major drawback as
compared to standard gastroscopy
Finally, I really do not understand why not all the patients underwent study of
the small bowel. Even if the authors did not feel useful in some patients to study
the small bowel, once the capsule was used I do not see the point in not
performing enteroscopy, considering the characteristics of this study (pilot study
for a new device).
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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, 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
content 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.
No competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) 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 will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published 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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: 
A novel capsule endoscopy for upper and mid-GI tract: the UMGI capsule
Version: 
1 
Date: 
20 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
I have read a revised version of the paper by Bin Jiang et al. about a novel string
and magnetic controlled capsule endoscopy for the study of upper and
intermediate gastrointestinal tract. 
While "standard" capsule endoscopy systems available offer a good visualization
of small bowel, the lack of control on capsule movements makes study of the
upper GI tract unreliable. Specifically designed capsules for the upper GI tract
are therefore awaited and could offer an alternative to standard upper GI
endoscopy.
The topic of the paper is therefore potentially interesting; however, the paper has
some problems that reduce its suitability for publication.
- Firsts of all, I found the paper absolutely difficult to read because of serious
linguistic problems. The authors claimed to have performed a linguistic revision,
but the second version of the paper is not so different from the first one and
many sentences are really painful to read. A serious and extensive review with
the help of an English mother-tongue reviewer is absolutely mandatory
(basically I think that almost the entire paper should be completely rewritten). 
From a clinical point of view, I agree with some of the observations already
performed by the other two reviewers. Overall, I think that the use of this capsule
to study the upper GI tract has several limitations
- While the new capsule system seems to have good diagnostic performances
compared to standard endoscopy (even if the use of healthy volunteers reduces
the strength of this statement), I see a lot of important drawbacks in terms of
comfort and organizational aspects. For example:
o Preparation: patients need to drink a large quantity of water (1 liter) in only 10
minutes before the procedure
o Very long duration of the study of UGI tract (around 20 minutes)
o Discomfort linked to the continuous movements of the string (a completely
magnetically controlled capsule would be much more comfortable)
- As already discussed, the impossibility to take biopsies is a major drawback as
compared to standard gastroscopy
Finally, I really do not understand why not all the patients underwent study of
the small bowel. Even if the authors did not feel useful in some patients to study
the small bowel, once the capsule was used I do not see the point in not
performing enteroscopy, considering the characteristics of this study (pilot study
for a new device).
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
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, 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
content 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.
No competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) 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 will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published 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 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
assistant