Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01326-8 (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Indications and diagnostic yield of small -bowel capsule endoscopy in a real -world setting  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Cherry Galorport  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Good work to the authors and team involved.  
 
It has been mentioned in the methodology that there were eleven local endoscopists who 
reviewed the procedures. In terms of describing the visualization of the bowel either "good or 
reduced", was there a scale or quality scoring instituted for the endoscopist to say that it is indeed 
good or reduced. It can be very subjective (i.e. inter -rater bias) considering the num ber of 
endoscopist involved and at the same time may/may not affect the findings. Do you agree that 
this may or may not affect overall findings?  
 
For the miscellaneous indications, was polyposis syndrome included? Would you know if there 
were such cases r eferred?  
 
For the defecation disorder, please clarify whether this is predominantly constipation or were 
there other causes?  
 
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 to the 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 the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the qualit y 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, fees, funding, or salary f rom 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 ap plied 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report t o 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 C ommons  
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