Reviewer's report
Title:Marginal turbid band and light blue crest, signs observed in magnifying
narrow-band imaging endoscopy, are indicative of gastric intestinal metaplasia
Version: 1Date:24 July 2012
Reviewer: Rungsun Rerknimitr
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. I am not quite sure about how the figures were displayed in the manuscript,
there must be some errors on figure labeling. Perhaps it may be, i.e. Figure
1C=Figure 3, Figure 1E=Figure 5. From what I saw in Figure 1C, LBC was also
present, but the author labeled it as “Regular honeycomb subepithelial network
and collecting venules subside. MTBs are seen (arrow), but LBC is not visible”.
This is the major pitfall of the present study since I cannot rely on the
interpretation of the difference between MTB and LBC for the accuracy of
predicting the presence of IM. In addition, the result of MTB reading by the author
(GH Kim) may be overlapping to the case where MTB was only interpreted but in
fact there might be LBC presented in that case as well. To solve this problem the
interobserver agreement is needed, before I can believe the accuracy of NBI
reading by a single interpreter.
2. IM usually locates in the antrum and body of the stomach. I wonder why the
examination was focused only at the lesser curvature of midbody and greater
curvature of upper body. Please explain.
3. In the background part paragraph#3, the authors stated “no study have
provided additional detail regarding the clinical significant….of LBC for predicting
IM” This is not true, there have been at least a few more publications since Udeo
published his first study in Endoscopy 2006. Please correct.
4. Please explain the technique of biopsy after magnifying NBI able to spot the
IM positive lesion, since switching the magnification back to a normal mode
before taking biopsy may be required. How did you do the mapping or make sure
that the biopsy was taken from the precise location?
5. MTB in your view may be the same as large long crest described by Bansal et
al (ref#8). Please explain the difference.
6. I am not quite sure about the availability of the magnify gastroscope
(GIF-H260Z) at other centers since it is not commercial available worldwide.
Therefore magnifying NBI is still reserved as a sophisticated technique in
advanced endoscopy center.
7. Please put all of the above mentioned into another paragraph as the limitation
of this study.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Figure labeling must be fixed.
2. In the results why there was only 46 specimens taken from the lesser
curvature instead of 47 (biopsy was taken from 47 patients).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
We also published and still continue doing the research in this field.
But we do not have financial or non-financial competing of interests to this paper.
For the rest of other questions, the answer is "no".
Reviewer's report
Title:Marginal turbid band and light blue crest, signs observed in magnifying
narrow-band imaging endoscopy, are indicative of gastric intestinal metaplasia
Version: 1Date:24 July 2012
Reviewer: Rungsun Rerknimitr
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. I am not quite sure about how the figures were displayed in the manuscript,
there must be some errors on figure labeling. Perhaps it may be, i.e. Figure
1C=Figure 3, Figure 1E=Figure 5. From what I saw in Figure 1C, LBC was also
present, but the author labeled it as “Regular honeycomb subepithelial network
and collecting venules subside. MTBs are seen (arrow), but LBC is not visible”.
This is the major pitfall of the present study since I cannot rely on the
interpretation of the difference between MTB and LBC for the accuracy of
predicting the presence of IM. In addition, the result of MTB reading by the author
(GH Kim) may be overlapping to the case where MTB was only interpreted but in
fact there might be LBC presented in that case as well. To solve this problem the
interobserver agreement is needed, before I can believe the accuracy of NBI
reading by a single interpreter.
2. IM usually locates in the antrum and body of the stomach. I wonder why the
examination was focused only at the lesser curvature of midbody and greater
curvature of upper body. Please explain.
3. In the background part paragraph#3, the authors stated “no study have
provided additional detail regarding the clinical significant….of LBC for predicting
IM” This is not true, there have been at least a few more publications since Udeo
published his first study in Endoscopy 2006. Please correct.
4. Please explain the technique of biopsy after magnifying NBI able to spot the
IM positive lesion, since switching the magnification back to a normal mode
before taking biopsy may be required. How did you do the mapping or make sure
that the biopsy was taken from the precise location?
5. MTB in your view may be the same as large long crest described by Bansal et
al (ref#8). Please explain the difference.
6. I am not quite sure about the availability of the magnify gastroscope
(GIF-H260Z) at other centers since it is not commercial available worldwide.
Therefore magnifying NBI is still reserved as a sophisticated technique in
advanced endoscopy center.
7. Please put all of the above mentioned into another paragraph as the limitation
of this study.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Figure labeling must be fixed.
2. In the results why there was only 46 specimens taken from the lesser
curvature instead of 47 (biopsy was taken from 47 patients).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
We also published and still continue doing the research in this field.
But we do not have financial or non-financial competing of interests to this paper.
For the rest of other questions, the answer is "no".
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Marginal turbid band and light blue crest, signs observed in magnifying
narrow-band imaging endoscopy, are indicative of gastric intestinal metaplasia
Version: 1Date:24 July 2012
Reviewer: Rungsun Rerknimitr
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. I am not quite sure about how the figures were displayed in the manuscript,
there must be some errors on figure labeling. Perhaps it may be, i.e. Figure
1C=Figure 3, Figure 1E=Figure 5. From what I saw in Figure 1C, LBC was also
present, but the author labeled it as “Regular honeycomb subepithelial network
and collecting venules subside. MTBs are seen (arrow), but LBC is not visible”.
This is the major pitfall of the present study since I cannot rely on the
interpretation of the difference between MTB and LBC for the accuracy of
predicting the presence of IM. In addition, the result of MTB reading by the author
(GH Kim) may be overlapping to the case where MTB was only interpreted but in
fact there might be LBC presented in that case as well. To solve this problem the
interobserver agreement is needed, before I can believe the accuracy of NBI
reading by a single interpreter.
2. IM usually locates in the antrum and body of the stomach. I wonder why the
examination was focused only at the lesser curvature of midbody and greater
curvature of upper body. Please explain.
3. In the background part paragraph#3, the authors stated “no study have
provided additional detail regarding the clinical significant….of LBC for predicting
IM” This is not true, there have been at least a few more publications since Udeo
published his first study in Endoscopy 2006. Please correct.
4. Please explain the technique of biopsy after magnifying NBI able to spot the
IM positive lesion, since switching the magnification back to a normal mode
before taking biopsy may be required. How did you do the mapping or make sure
that the biopsy was taken from the precise location?
5. MTB in your view may be the same as large long crest described by Bansal et
al (ref#8). Please explain the difference.
6. I am not quite sure about the availability of the magnify gastroscope
(GIF-H260Z) at other centers since it is not commercial available worldwide.
Therefore magnifying NBI is still reserved as a sophisticated technique in
advanced endoscopy center.
7. Please put all of the above mentioned into another paragraph as the limitation
of this study.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Figure labeling must be fixed.
2. In the results why there was only 46 specimens taken from the lesser
curvature instead of 47 (biopsy was taken from 47 patients).
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
We also published and still continue doing the research in this field.
But we do not have financial or non-financial competing of interests to this paper.
For the rest of other questions, the answer is "no".
assistant