Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1051-8 (2019)

Reviewer’s report
Title:  AIMS65  scoring  system  is  comparable  to  Glasgow-Blatchford  score  or  Rockall  score  for
prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Version: 0 Date: 23 Jul 2018
Reviewer: Chikara Iino
Reviewer's report:
Comment to the Authors
The form of your manuscript is almost same as recently published literature suggesting the usefulness
of the AIMS65 in predicting the mortality for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Although a
certain amount of patients were included in this study, there is no originality and novelty.
1.The research topic of this manuscript has already been performed in several studies. Do authors
have any new recommendation for daily practice according to these results?
2.The authors should describe the criteria for the transfusion and ICU admission.
3.The authors should describe the sentence in methods about excluding variceal bleeding.
4.In  5  death  patients  with  uncontrolled  bleeding,  were  they  treated  with  the  interventional
radiology or operational therapy to control bleed?
5.Were the patients with Forrest IIa or IIb gastric ulcer treated with endoscopic intervention?
Because endoscopic intervention was secondary outcomes, author should describe the definition for
endoscopic intervention.
6.Rebleeding  occurred  in  65  patients.  Are  there  any  differences  in  endoscopic  findings,
medications, or treatment?
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 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.
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, fees, funding, or salary from 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 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.
I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand 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