03733219

June 21, 2025, 09:20

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

Dear Editor, Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled "Efficacy Comparison of Intravenous Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Oral Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Before Endoscopic Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers." Upon review, I am particularly impressed by the study's advancements and strengths in the following areas: Focused and Clinically Relevant Topic: This study directly addresses a critical question in gastroenterological practice: optimizing the management strategy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding before endoscopic intervention. Comparing the widely used intravenous PPIs with the emerging oral PCABs renders the topic highly timely and of significant clinical value, providing valuable evidence to inform optimal treatment decisions. Clinically Aligned Study Design: The authors employed a retrospective single-center design, effectively capturing the real-world scenario where physicians select medication (PPI or PCAB) based on individual patient circumstances. Such research based on real-world data yields results with greater direct relevance for guiding routine clinical practice. Sophisticated Statistical Methodology: Recognizing the potential for confounding inherent in retrospective observational studies, the authors proactively applied Propensity Score Matching (PSM), an advanced statistical technique, to mitigate potential confounders and balance inter-group differences. This demonstrates the authors' commitment to methodological rigor and enhancing the reliability of the findings. Focus on Core Clinical Outcomes: Selecting rebleeding rate as a primary endpoint is a key strength. This is a robust indicator directly reflecting treatment efficacy and patient safety. Focusing on this core outcome ensures the results possess clear clinical relevance and directly serve the fundamental goal of improving patient prognosis. Introduction of an Innovative Concept: The proposed "Green Endoscopy" hypothesis – suggesting oral PCABs might reduce waste associated with intravenous drug administration – represents a highly forward-thinking and innovative perspective. This reflects the authors' attention not only to efficacy but also to the sustainability and environmental impact of medical practice, thereby broadening the dimensions of treatment strategy evaluation and opening a valuable new direction for future research. Clear Data Presentation and Defined Core Findings: The core methodology and results sections are presented clearly, enabling readers to grasp the study's framework and principal findings. Particularly noteworthy is the preliminary indication of comparable efficacy between intravenous PPIs and oral PCABs on key observational metrics, which in itself provides valuable information for clinical practice. Overall Readability: The manuscript is generally well-written and fluent, effectively communicating the main content and intent of the research, ensuring the efficient transmission of scientific information. Summary: Scientific Quality: Grade B Language Quality: Grade B Recommendation: Meets publication standards

First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219. Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.

03769692

June 20, 2025, 09:44

Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript

Does the reader have a conflict of interest?

The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories

Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.

This paper provides a comprehensive and timely comparison between intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and oral potassium competitive acid blockers (PCABs) in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) prior to endoscopic treatment. The study demonstrates that pre-endoscopic PCAB administration is more effective than PPI injection in reducing the need for therapeutic endoscopic interventions and minimizing re-bleeding events. Given the growing interest in optimizing acid suppression therapies, the findings are significant, suggesting that oral PCABs could offer a practical, effective alternative to intravenous PPIs, especially in emergency settings. Overall, the study contributes valuable insights into the management of bleeding peptic ulcers and has important clinical implications, especially for enhancing treatment protocols in emergency gastroenterology settings.

Thank you very much for your comments.