Reviewer's report
Title:Microcystic/reticular schwannoma of the esophagus: the first case report
and a diagnostic pitfall
Version:1Date:17 March 2014
Reviewer: Rabindra Watson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Line 2 of discussion should read: More than 80% of benign esophageal tumors
are leiomyomas.
2. The last sentence of the first paragraph should read: Recently,
endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy has been
shown to be useful for preoperative diagnosis.
3. The first line of paragraph 2 of the discussion should read: To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first report of a microcystic/reticular schwannoma
diagnosed in the esophagus
4. Differential diagnosis should be used in lieu of differential diagnoses
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The conclusion sentence: 'Many pathologists including our group are unlikely
to be familiar with this entity, which may cause diagnostic difficulties' ought to
include gastroenterologists and including a comment about your own
pathologists is unnecessary.
2. The method of endoscopic resection would be of interest to the reader. Were
any specific techniques used in this case? What was the thinking process?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Microcystic/reticular schwannoma of the esophagus: the first case report
and a diagnostic pitfall
Version:1Date:17 March 2014
Reviewer: Rabindra Watson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Line 2 of discussion should read: More than 80% of benign esophageal tumors
are leiomyomas.
2. The last sentence of the first paragraph should read: Recently,
endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy has been
shown to be useful for preoperative diagnosis.
3. The first line of paragraph 2 of the discussion should read: To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first report of a microcystic/reticular schwannoma
diagnosed in the esophagus
4. Differential diagnosis should be used in lieu of differential diagnoses
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The conclusion sentence: 'Many pathologists including our group are unlikely
to be familiar with this entity, which may cause diagnostic difficulties' ought to
include gastroenterologists and including a comment about your own
pathologists is unnecessary.
2. The method of endoscopic resection would be of interest to the reader. Were
any specific techniques used in this case? What was the thinking process?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Microcystic/reticular schwannoma of the esophagus: the first case report
and a diagnostic pitfall
Version:1Date:17 March 2014
Reviewer: Rabindra Watson
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. Line 2 of discussion should read: More than 80% of benign esophageal tumors
are leiomyomas.
2. The last sentence of the first paragraph should read: Recently,
endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy has been
shown to be useful for preoperative diagnosis.
3. The first line of paragraph 2 of the discussion should read: To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first report of a microcystic/reticular schwannoma
diagnosed in the esophagus
4. Differential diagnosis should be used in lieu of differential diagnoses
Discretionary Revisions:
1. The conclusion sentence: 'Many pathologists including our group are unlikely
to be familiar with this entity, which may cause diagnostic difficulties' ought to
include gastroenterologists and including a comment about your own
pathologists is unnecessary.
2. The method of endoscopic resection would be of interest to the reader. Were
any specific techniques used in this case? What was the thinking process?
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant