Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0828-5 (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow -Blatchford and Rockall s coring approaches in 
predicting the risk of in -hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper 
gastrointestinal  bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Regional China  
 
Version: 2 Date: 20 May 2018  
 
Reviewer: Ming -Lun Han  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The manuscript really got much improved after revision. However, some issues still need to be 
clarified.  
1. The percentage of erosive esophagitis (one of the scoring factors in RS) was not shown in the 
RESULT and in the revised table 2. Moreover, the statement of acute gastric muco sal lesion 
was duplicated in the RESULT ( Page 10, Line 23).     
2. As for table 3, the total number of participants was incorrect (the number of no death = 744 
and death = 25, but total participants were 799). Similarly, in the lower part of table 4, the 
number of mortality and non -mortality of VUGIB patients was also incorrect (total VUGIB 
=125, but no death = 744, death = 25).   
3. The presentation of table 5 was too simple. According to the main result of this study, 
AIMS65 was the best predictor for in -hospital mortality when the cutoff value was set at 2. 
For better understanding, the sensitivity and specificity of AIMS65 when the cutoff value set 
at 1 or 3 should also be listed in table 5.   
 
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.  
Unable to assess  
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments t o the authors.  
Yes 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments t o the editors.  
I am able to assess the statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Acceptable  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, eit her 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 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 an swer 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 for 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 included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal