Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The Effect of Prophylactic Hemoclips on the Risk of Delayed Post -Endoscopic Mucosal  
Resection Bleed for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Retrospective Cohort Study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: A Turan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear authors,  
 
 
 
Thank you for answering my questions in detail and fo r implementing my recommendations 
where you saw fit. I will respond to some, but not all the alterations you made, as overall I agree 
they are interesting additions.  
 
 
9. Thank you for addressing this issue in your discussion. You presented the point very clearly in 
lines 509 -514. My advice would therefore be to leave out lines 514 -520. 
 
 
11. I would advise to shorten the discussion to improve readability. This can be don e in my view 
by omitting lines 451 -461, summarizing lines 478 -483 and maybe shortening the explanation of 
the designs of the three recent RCTs. Here, it is enough in my opinion to highlight parts that are 
interesting to compare with your own findings (e.g.  lesion size, complete closure, your idea that 
clip experience is important etc.). Also, I think you have already discussed lines 561 -564 
adequately in 544 -546, and may therefore leave them out.  
 
 
One final correction: you write that Pohl's article was publ ished after Albeniz's, but this is 
actually the other way around.  
 
 
 
Kind regards  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 nece ssary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess a ny statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in t he past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisatio n that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication 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, fe es, 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 jou rnal. 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 the 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: The Effect of Prophylactic Hemoclips on the Risk of Delayed Post -Endoscopic Mucosal  
Resection Bleed for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Retrospective Cohort Study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: A Turan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear authors,  
 
 
 
Thank you for answering my questions in detail and fo r implementing my recommendations 
where you saw fit. I will respond to some, but not all the alterations you made, as overall I agree 
they are interesting additions.  
 
 
9. Thank you for addressing this issue in your discussion. You presented the point very clearly in 
lines 509 -514. My advice would therefore be to leave out lines 514 -520. 
 
 
11. I would advise to shorten the discussion to improve readability. This can be don e in my view 
by omitting lines 451 -461, summarizing lines 478 -483 and maybe shortening the explanation of 
the designs of the three recent RCTs. Here, it is enough in my opinion to highlight parts that are 
interesting to compare with your own findings (e.g.  lesion size, complete closure, your idea that 
clip experience is important etc.). Also, I think you have already discussed lines 561 -564 
adequately in 544 -546, and may therefore leave them out.  
 
 
One final correction: you write that Pohl's article was publ ished after Albeniz's, but this is 
actually the other way around.  
 
 
 
Kind regards  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 nece ssary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess a ny statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in t he past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisatio n that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication 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, fe es, 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 jou rnal. 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 the 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: The Effect of Prophylactic Hemoclips on the Risk of Delayed Post -Endoscopic Mucosal  
Resection Bleed for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Retrospective Cohort Study  
 
Version: 1 Date: 26 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: A Turan  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear authors,  
 
 
 
Thank you for answering my questions in detail and fo r implementing my recommendations 
where you saw fit. I will respond to some, but not all the alterations you made, as overall I agree 
they are interesting additions.  
 
 
9. Thank you for addressing this issue in your discussion. You presented the point very clearly in 
lines 509 -514. My advice would therefore be to leave out lines 514 -520. 
 
 
11. I would advise to shorten the discussion to improve readability. This can be don e in my view 
by omitting lines 451 -461, summarizing lines 478 -483 and maybe shortening the explanation of 
the designs of the three recent RCTs. Here, it is enough in my opinion to highlight parts that are 
interesting to compare with your own findings (e.g.  lesion size, complete closure, your idea that 
clip experience is important etc.). Also, I think you have already discussed lines 561 -564 
adequately in 544 -546, and may therefore leave them out.  
 
 
One final correction: you write that Pohl's article was publ ished after Albeniz's, but this is 
actually the other way around.  
 
 
 
Kind regards  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 nece ssary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess a ny statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects 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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in t he past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisatio n that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication 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, fe es, 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 jou rnal. 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 the 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