Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:30 November 2010
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
This study shows effectiveness of systemic steroid administration for control of
postprocedural esophageal stricture after the complete circular ESD. This study
can be very useful for endoscopists who perform esophageal ESD. However,
there are some problems that need to be solved in the manuscript.
Major;
1. The number of patients is too small to accept in present form. Then I would
like to advice the authors that they should change the writing style of this paper
to Case report.
2. Does this manuscript focus on “effectiveness of systemic steroid
administration for control of postprocedural esophageal stricture after the
complete circular ESD” or “technical feasibility of the complete circular ESD”?
Considering the ABSTRACT, the former seems to be essential point to be
emphasized. If so, DISCUSSION including conclusion is confusing. For example,
the 4th paragraph of DISCUSSION seems to be unnecessary.
3. Description about methodology is not enough. The authors should define the
study protocol including allocation of seven patients into two groups in
METHODS. Additionally, indication for complete circular ESD is not defined
enough. Not all superficial SCCs in more than three quarters circumferential
extension require complete circular ESD. The authors should describe why they
had to perform complete circular ESD for each patient.
4. Among seven patients, two patients had sm1 lesions which might require
additional therapy. Did the authors perform additionally therapy including
radiation? If they didn’t, they have to describe why they did not perform additional
therapy. From this view point, the author should describe not only local
recurrence but also distant metastasis during the follow-up period.
Minor;
1. Do the authors perform both of plain chest X-ray and chest CT for all the
patients to check perforation? Additionally, CO2 insufflation can make it difficult
to detect perforation in these modalities. Please comment about this.
2. The authors say that they used the Fisher’s exact test, the chi-square test, the
Student’s t test, and the Mann-Whitney test for statistical analysis. However, in
RESULTS, statistical analysis is performed only to compare the numbers of
sessions of EBD in two groups. Did they use only the Student’s t test?
3. There are some mistakes in this manuscript. The authors should have the
manuscript checked by a native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:30 November 2010
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
This study shows effectiveness of systemic steroid administration for control of
postprocedural esophageal stricture after the complete circular ESD. This study
can be very useful for endoscopists who perform esophageal ESD. However,
there are some problems that need to be solved in the manuscript.
Major;
1. The number of patients is too small to accept in present form. Then I would
like to advice the authors that they should change the writing style of this paper
to Case report.
2. Does this manuscript focus on “effectiveness of systemic steroid
administration for control of postprocedural esophageal stricture after the
complete circular ESD” or “technical feasibility of the complete circular ESD”?
Considering the ABSTRACT, the former seems to be essential point to be
emphasized. If so, DISCUSSION including conclusion is confusing. For example,
the 4th paragraph of DISCUSSION seems to be unnecessary.
3. Description about methodology is not enough. The authors should define the
study protocol including allocation of seven patients into two groups in
METHODS. Additionally, indication for complete circular ESD is not defined
enough. Not all superficial SCCs in more than three quarters circumferential
extension require complete circular ESD. The authors should describe why they
had to perform complete circular ESD for each patient.
4. Among seven patients, two patients had sm1 lesions which might require
additional therapy. Did the authors perform additionally therapy including
radiation? If they didn’t, they have to describe why they did not perform additional
therapy. From this view point, the author should describe not only local
recurrence but also distant metastasis during the follow-up period.
Minor;
1. Do the authors perform both of plain chest X-ray and chest CT for all the
patients to check perforation? Additionally, CO2 insufflation can make it difficult
to detect perforation in these modalities. Please comment about this.
2. The authors say that they used the Fisher’s exact test, the chi-square test, the
Student’s t test, and the Mann-Whitney test for statistical analysis. However, in
RESULTS, statistical analysis is performed only to compare the numbers of
sessions of EBD in two groups. Did they use only the Student’s t test?
3. There are some mistakes in this manuscript. The authors should have the
manuscript checked by a native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 1Date:30 November 2010
Reviewer: Satoshi Ono
Reviewer's report:
This study shows effectiveness of systemic steroid administration for control of
postprocedural esophageal stricture after the complete circular ESD. This study
can be very useful for endoscopists who perform esophageal ESD. However,
there are some problems that need to be solved in the manuscript.
Major;
1. The number of patients is too small to accept in present form. Then I would
like to advice the authors that they should change the writing style of this paper
to Case report.
2. Does this manuscript focus on “effectiveness of systemic steroid
administration for control of postprocedural esophageal stricture after the
complete circular ESD” or “technical feasibility of the complete circular ESD”?
Considering the ABSTRACT, the former seems to be essential point to be
emphasized. If so, DISCUSSION including conclusion is confusing. For example,
the 4th paragraph of DISCUSSION seems to be unnecessary.
3. Description about methodology is not enough. The authors should define the
study protocol including allocation of seven patients into two groups in
METHODS. Additionally, indication for complete circular ESD is not defined
enough. Not all superficial SCCs in more than three quarters circumferential
extension require complete circular ESD. The authors should describe why they
had to perform complete circular ESD for each patient.
4. Among seven patients, two patients had sm1 lesions which might require
additional therapy. Did the authors perform additionally therapy including
radiation? If they didn’t, they have to describe why they did not perform additional
therapy. From this view point, the author should describe not only local
recurrence but also distant metastasis during the follow-up period.
Minor;
1. Do the authors perform both of plain chest X-ray and chest CT for all the
patients to check perforation? Additionally, CO2 insufflation can make it difficult
to detect perforation in these modalities. Please comment about this.
2. The authors say that they used the Fisher’s exact test, the chi-square test, the
Student’s t test, and the Mann-Whitney test for statistical analysis. However, in
RESULTS, statistical analysis is performed only to compare the numbers of
sessions of EBD in two groups. Did they use only the Student’s t test?
3. There are some mistakes in this manuscript. The authors should have the
manuscript checked by a native English speaker.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant