Reviewer's report
Title:A Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:5Date:8 August 2014
Reviewer: Ming-wei Lai
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has clarified some issues and been polished in writing.
The authors have replied my questions or comments point by point. Two
additional suggestions are listed below:
1. Page 6, line 1. (No proton pump inhibitors were used in all cases.)
The author replied that cimetidine or glucagon was not used. I suggest to change
the sentence to “Neither cimetidine nor proton pump inhibitors were used in all
cases before MD scan”. (Minor Essential Revisions)
2. Page 6-11. In response to other reviewer’s comment, Table 1 was planned to
be embedded in the text instead of supplementary table and the individual case
history was summarized. I suggest Case 1-3 paragraphs may be omitted
because the Table 1 already presented everything. The order of the column may
be adjusted in parallel with the flow chart (Abdominal CT before small bowel
series). I suggest the order of various examinations may be presented in each
case in the table to make the algorithm clear, as suggested change in the “1
need revision” file. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:A Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:5Date:8 August 2014
Reviewer: Ming-wei Lai
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has clarified some issues and been polished in writing.
The authors have replied my questions or comments point by point. Two
additional suggestions are listed below:
1. Page 6, line 1. (No proton pump inhibitors were used in all cases.)
The author replied that cimetidine or glucagon was not used. I suggest to change
the sentence to “Neither cimetidine nor proton pump inhibitors were used in all
cases before MD scan”. (Minor Essential Revisions)
2. Page 6-11. In response to other reviewer’s comment, Table 1 was planned to
be embedded in the text instead of supplementary table and the individual case
history was summarized. I suggest Case 1-3 paragraphs may be omitted
because the Table 1 already presented everything. The order of the column may
be adjusted in parallel with the flow chart (Abdominal CT before small bowel
series). I suggest the order of various examinations may be presented in each
case in the table to make the algorithm clear, as suggested change in the “1
need revision” file. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A Case series of Meckel's diverticulum: usefulness of double-balloon
enteroscopy for diagnosis
Version:5Date:8 August 2014
Reviewer: Ming-wei Lai
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has clarified some issues and been polished in writing.
The authors have replied my questions or comments point by point. Two
additional suggestions are listed below:
1. Page 6, line 1. (No proton pump inhibitors were used in all cases.)
The author replied that cimetidine or glucagon was not used. I suggest to change
the sentence to “Neither cimetidine nor proton pump inhibitors were used in all
cases before MD scan”. (Minor Essential Revisions)
2. Page 6-11. In response to other reviewer’s comment, Table 1 was planned to
be embedded in the text instead of supplementary table and the individual case
history was summarized. I suggest Case 1-3 paragraphs may be omitted
because the Table 1 already presented everything. The order of the column may
be adjusted in parallel with the flow chart (Abdominal CT before small bowel
series). I suggest the order of various examinations may be presented in each
case in the table to make the algorithm clear, as suggested change in the “1
need revision” file. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant