Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Bleeding in patients who underwent scheduled sec ond-look endoscopy 5 days after 
endoscopic sub mucosal dissection for gastric lesions  
 
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Francesca Galuppini  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This is a wll -written manuscript about the risk of bleeding after second -look endoscopy (SLE) in 
the setting of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).  
Although the work is well conducted and the main concerns are highlighted by the Authors, it 
does not have a great originality.  
One of the concern I have is the following: How do the Authors argue the result that 
antithrombotic drugs affect more on later phase post - ESD bleeding?  
There are some typos and English could be reviewed.   
 
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 ade quately 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy what as pects 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:  
Needs some lang uage corrections before being published  
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 sala ry from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publicat ion 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 declare that 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 t he 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  
Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Bleeding in patients who underwent scheduled sec ond-look endoscopy 5 days after 
endoscopic sub mucosal dissection for gastric lesions  
 
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Francesca Galuppini  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This is a wll -written manuscript about the risk of bleeding after second -look endoscopy (SLE) in 
the setting of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).  
Although the work is well conducted and the main concerns are highlighted by the Authors, it 
does not have a great originality.  
One of the concern I have is the following: How do the Authors argue the result that 
antithrombotic drugs affect more on later phase post - ESD bleeding?  
There are some typos and English could be reviewed.   
 
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 ade quately 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy what as pects 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:  
Needs some lang uage corrections before being published  
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 sala ry from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publicat ion 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 declare that 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 t he 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  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Bleeding in patients who underwent scheduled sec ond-look endoscopy 5 days after 
endoscopic sub mucosal dissection for gastric lesions  
 
Version: 0 Date: 26 Jan 2018  
 
Reviewer: Francesca Galuppini  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This is a wll -written manuscript about the risk of bleeding after second -look endoscopy (SLE) in 
the setting of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).  
Although the work is well conducted and the main concerns are highlighted by the Authors, it 
does not have a great originality.  
One of the concern I have is the following: How do the Authors argue the result that 
antithrombotic drugs affect more on later phase post - ESD bleeding?  
There are some typos and English could be reviewed.   
 
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 ade quately 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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy what as pects 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:  
Needs some lang uage corrections before being published  
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 sala ry from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publicat ion 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 declare that 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 t he 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  
assistant