Document resource
We sincerely thank Abdulrahman Qatomah et al and Suchanart Jitrukthai and Kaosombatwattana for their interest in our study and for their insightful comments.1–3 The overall and severe delayed bleeding rates may appear slightly elevated from a real-world clinical standpoint. However, in this study, patients with overall delayed bleeding were classified into two groups: severe and mild delayed bleeding groups. Severe delayed bleeding was defined as haematochezia that required endoscopic haemostasis or blood transfusion, whereas mild delayed bleeding was defined as haematochezia that required no haemostasis or transfusion. Thus, the definition of severe delayed bleeding in this study is similar to the criteria used in the previous reports. The mild delayed bleeding group included cases of haematochezia resulting from residual blood or slight bleeding. Although not life-threatening, we believe that reducing the mild delayed bleeding rate can help reassure patients and reduce the workload on inpatient care staff. Furthermore, the assessment of severe delayed bleeding is more susceptible to bias compared with mild delayed bleeding. Therefore, mild bleeding may serve as a more objective measure of effectiveness and should be considered an important indicator.