Title: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and
conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical
difficulty: A retrospective case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity of reviewing a manuscript titled “Comparison of
efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD
for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: A
retrospective case-control study”.
This manuscript is well written, but I have a suggestion as follows.
1. Authors described the following exclusion criteria in the methods,
(3) unplanned DCRB-ESD cases whose clips and rubber band application were not planned until
the trimming process was jammed for a long time, also due to the impact on the outcome of
operation duration and the introduced heterogeneity
On the other hand, authors describe the following in the discussion. “When planning ESD
treatment, the endoscopist tends to not apply DCRB in easy cases; therefore, most of the easy
cases were included in the C-ESD group, resulting in limited cases in the DCRB-ESD group.”
I don’t know when and how the operator chose either C-ESD or DCRB-ESD. If the operator
chose DCRB-ESD for difficult cases, I understand it. If so, however, their exclusion criteria
may be inappropriate. Authors should describe how to choose either C-ESD or DCRB-ESD or
reconsider its exclusion criteria.
Title: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and
conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical
difficulty: A retrospective case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity of reviewing a manuscript titled “Comparison of
efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD
for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: A
retrospective case-control study”.
This manuscript is well written, but I have a suggestion as follows.
1. Authors described the following exclusion criteria in the methods,
(3) unplanned DCRB-ESD cases whose clips and rubber band application were not planned until
the trimming process was jammed for a long time, also due to the impact on the outcome of
operation duration and the introduced heterogeneity
On the other hand, authors describe the following in the discussion. “When planning ESD
treatment, the endoscopist tends to not apply DCRB in easy cases; therefore, most of the easy
cases were included in the C-ESD group, resulting in limited cases in the DCRB-ESD group.”
I don’t know when and how the operator chose either C-ESD or DCRB-ESD. If the operator
chose DCRB-ESD for difficult cases, I understand it. If so, however, their exclusion criteria
may be inappropriate. Authors should describe how to choose either C-ESD or DCRB-ESD or
reconsider its exclusion criteria.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and
conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical
difficulty: A retrospective case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity of reviewing a manuscript titled “Comparison of
efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD
for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: A
retrospective case-control study”.
This manuscript is well written, but I have a suggestion as follows.
1. Authors described the following exclusion criteria in the methods,
(3) unplanned DCRB-ESD cases whose clips and rubber band application were not planned until
the trimming process was jammed for a long time, also due to the impact on the outcome of
operation duration and the introduced heterogeneity
On the other hand, authors describe the following in the discussion. “When planning ESD
treatment, the endoscopist tends to not apply DCRB in easy cases; therefore, most of the easy
cases were included in the C-ESD group, resulting in limited cases in the DCRB-ESD group.”
I don’t know when and how the operator chose either C-ESD or DCRB-ESD. If the operator
chose DCRB-ESD for difficult cases, I understand it. If so, however, their exclusion criteria
may be inappropriate. Authors should describe how to choose either C-ESD or DCRB-ESD or
reconsider its exclusion criteria.
assistant