Reviewer's report 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 2  28 June 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) 
I appreciate very much the authors answers to my suggestions, but the content of their answers 
should be also incorporated in the text. Moreover, in addition to citing the CONSORT statement in 
the introduction, CONSORT statement recommendations should be followed. CONSORT statement 
depicts the requirements for adequately publishing a randomized trial, including a flow diagram on 
the evolution of patients, and adequate report of inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, randomization 
and concealment methods, etc. that are currently not included in the paper, even in the revised 
version. It is mandatory to adequate the paper to such standard recommendations. 
Additionally, to my previous comments, I believe that it is necessary to comment on the method of 
administration of omeprazole. It is commonly believed that omeprazole administered as a powder is 
quickly inactivated by gastric acid loosing a part of its effect. It could be necessary to comment why 
omeprazole was administered as suspension and not as a capsule. 
If patients were randomly distributed it is impossible that they were matched by age and sex. This 
fact should be expressed as no significant differences in age or sex distribution were found between 
the randomization arms and the statemnet on matching deleted. 
In the results the authors state that duration of active bleeding was longer in the cimetidine group. 
This statement is difficult to interpret as there is not described in the text what active bleeding means 
or how the authors measured the duration of active bleeding. 
The term bleeding due to drugs is confusing. It the authors mean that they excluded patients on 
anticoagulant therapy, this should be explicitly 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 of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
Reviewer's report 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 2  28 June 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) 
I appreciate very much the authors answers to my suggestions, but the content of their answers 
should be also incorporated in the text. Moreover, in addition to citing the CONSORT statement in 
the introduction, CONSORT statement recommendations should be followed. CONSORT statement 
depicts the requirements for adequately publishing a randomized trial, including a flow diagram on 
the evolution of patients, and adequate report of inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, randomization 
and concealment methods, etc. that are currently not included in the paper, even in the revised 
version. It is mandatory to adequate the paper to such standard recommendations. 
Additionally, to my previous comments, I believe that it is necessary to comment on the method of 
administration of omeprazole. It is commonly believed that omeprazole administered as a powder is 
quickly inactivated by gastric acid loosing a part of its effect. It could be necessary to comment why 
omeprazole was administered as suspension and not as a capsule. 
If patients were randomly distributed it is impossible that they were matched by age and sex. This 
fact should be expressed as no significant differences in age or sex distribution were found between 
the randomization arms and the statemnet on matching deleted. 
In the results the authors state that duration of active bleeding was longer in the cimetidine group. 
This statement is difficult to interpret as there is not described in the text what active bleeding means 
or how the authors measured the duration of active bleeding. 
The term bleeding due to drugs is confusing. It the authors mean that they excluded patients on 
anticoagulant therapy, this should be explicitly 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 of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable 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 
 A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of Title: 
duodenal peptic ulcer 
 2  28 June 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) 
I appreciate very much the authors answers to my suggestions, but the content of their answers 
should be also incorporated in the text. Moreover, in addition to citing the CONSORT statement in 
the introduction, CONSORT statement recommendations should be followed. CONSORT statement 
depicts the requirements for adequately publishing a randomized trial, including a flow diagram on 
the evolution of patients, and adequate report of inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, randomization 
and concealment methods, etc. that are currently not included in the paper, even in the revised 
version. It is mandatory to adequate the paper to such standard recommendations. 
Additionally, to my previous comments, I believe that it is necessary to comment on the method of 
administration of omeprazole. It is commonly believed that omeprazole administered as a powder is 
quickly inactivated by gastric acid loosing a part of its effect. It could be necessary to comment why 
omeprazole was administered as suspension and not as a capsule. 
If patients were randomly distributed it is impossible that they were matched by age and sex. This 
fact should be expressed as no significant differences in age or sex distribution were found between 
the randomization arms and the statemnet on matching deleted. 
In the results the authors state that duration of active bleeding was longer in the cimetidine group. 
This statement is difficult to interpret as there is not described in the text what active bleeding means 
or how the authors measured the duration of active bleeding. 
The term bleeding due to drugs is confusing. It the authors mean that they excluded patients on 
anticoagulant therapy, this should be explicitly 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 of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Acceptable Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'
assistant