Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Effects of audio and visual distraction on patients ’ vital signs and tolerance during 
esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
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 o bjective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
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 sufficie nt 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 interpretation/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 recom mend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewer read the manuscript, and found that the c ontents itself 
is satisfactory. But this manuscript needs editing from the viewpoint of length. The present 
manuscript was well revised responding to the comments by the reviewer, and the reviewer 
considers the manuscript will be accepted for publication, however, there are many concerns not 
the contents of the manuscript but the way of writing. There was so much redundancy in the text, 
and manuscript was too long to be published. More succinct way of writing is required.  
 
If the editor from the publishing company would edit the manuscript to the 1/3 size, I believe this 
manuscript should be accepted.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
The reviewer considers that the current manuscript should be re -revised in the way that editing 
and removing redundant part of the manus cript. The authors revised well in response to the 
comments from the reviewer, which made the length of the manuscript too long to be necessary. 
There would be several points to be removed from the revised manuscript, making the length to 
1/3 (39 pages to 14, 5 pages). Editing can be requested to either the author side or editing expert 
in the publisher.  
 
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 th e 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 specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to t he editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
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 financially from the publi cation 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Researc h Square. 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  small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along  with the authors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report  can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
 
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Effects of audio and visual distraction on patients ’ vital signs and tolerance during 
esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
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 o bjective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
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 sufficie nt 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 interpretation/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 recom mend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewer read the manuscript, and found that the c ontents itself 
is satisfactory. But this manuscript needs editing from the viewpoint of length. The present 
manuscript was well revised responding to the comments by the reviewer, and the reviewer 
considers the manuscript will be accepted for publication, however, there are many concerns not 
the contents of the manuscript but the way of writing. There was so much redundancy in the text, 
and manuscript was too long to be published. More succinct way of writing is required.  
 
If the editor from the publishing company would edit the manuscript to the 1/3 size, I believe this 
manuscript should be accepted.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
The reviewer considers that the current manuscript should be re -revised in the way that editing 
and removing redundant part of the manus cript. The authors revised well in response to the 
comments from the reviewer, which made the length of the manuscript too long to be necessary. 
There would be several points to be removed from the revised manuscript, making the length to 
1/3 (39 pages to 14, 5 pages). Editing can be requested to either the author side or editing expert 
in the publisher.  
 
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 th e 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 specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to t he editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
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 financially from the publi cation 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Researc h Square. 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  small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along  with the authors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report  can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Effects of audio and visual distraction on patients ’ vital signs and tolerance during 
esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date: 24 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1  
 
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 o bjective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
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 sufficie nt 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 interpretation/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 recom mend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The reviewer read the manuscript, and found that the c ontents itself 
is satisfactory. But this manuscript needs editing from the viewpoint of length. The present 
manuscript was well revised responding to the comments by the reviewer, and the reviewer 
considers the manuscript will be accepted for publication, however, there are many concerns not 
the contents of the manuscript but the way of writing. There was so much redundancy in the text, 
and manuscript was too long to be published. More succinct way of writing is required.  
 
If the editor from the publishing company would edit the manuscript to the 1/3 size, I believe this 
manuscript should be accepted.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
The reviewer considers that the current manuscript should be re -revised in the way that editing 
and removing redundant part of the manus cript. The authors revised well in response to the 
comments from the reviewer, which made the length of the manuscript too long to be necessary. 
There would be several points to be removed from the revised manuscript, making the length to 
1/3 (39 pages to 14, 5 pages). Editing can be requested to either the author side or editing expert 
in the publisher.  
 
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 th e 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 specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to t he editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
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 financially from the publi cation 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 curr ently 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Researc h Square. 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  small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along  with the authors' 
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report  can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
 
assistant