Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I write you in regards to manuscript # ID bd7c3c98-a01a-4cd4-9ca2-85a4f30bb7fc “Ultrasoic
endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy" which you
submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript
has been denied publication in the BMC Gastroenterology.
The title of this manuscript is “Ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture
after variceal sclerotherapy ". The manuscript provides very interesting data, but it still needs
some considerable revision.
Major points
1. You lack detailed explanations on how to do it. For example, the endoscope used, the high
frequency generator, the equipment settings at some mode of incision, etc.
2. You lack a technical explanation. How to check the depth of incision and a guide of the
endoscopic findings.
3. Your dissertation is biased in citations. Reference 4 alone is not sufficient as an international
guideline. It is also advisable to refer to guidelines, recommendations and announcements
from the American Society of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, the American Society of
Gastroenterology, GUT, UEG, etc.
4. It shows the medical standards in China for benign esophageal stricture after EIS. However,
the frequency of EIS complications has not been shown internationally. It is necessary to show
through the literature that it is a complication that does not depend on the medical standard or
technical level of each country.
Minor points
1. References 12-13 are papers on "malignant stenosis" and "postoperative surgery". Please
consider that the papers to be cited are "beneficial stenosis" and "after endoscopic treatment".
2. In conclusion, it is necessary to settle by RCT with balloon expansion, which is the mainstream
of the conventional method. However, due to the low frequency of complications, it may take
some time before clinical conclusions can be reached. It is hoped that you will give your thoughts
on when the incision method is better than balloon dilation.
That is all for my opinion on this manuscript.
Thank you.
Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I write you in regards to manuscript # ID bd7c3c98-a01a-4cd4-9ca2-85a4f30bb7fc “Ultrasoic
endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy" which you
submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript
has been denied publication in the BMC Gastroenterology.
The title of this manuscript is “Ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture
after variceal sclerotherapy ". The manuscript provides very interesting data, but it still needs
some considerable revision.
Major points
1. You lack detailed explanations on how to do it. For example, the endoscope used, the high
frequency generator, the equipment settings at some mode of incision, etc.
2. You lack a technical explanation. How to check the depth of incision and a guide of the
endoscopic findings.
3. Your dissertation is biased in citations. Reference 4 alone is not sufficient as an international
guideline. It is also advisable to refer to guidelines, recommendations and announcements
from the American Society of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, the American Society of
Gastroenterology, GUT, UEG, etc.
4. It shows the medical standards in China for benign esophageal stricture after EIS. However,
the frequency of EIS complications has not been shown internationally. It is necessary to show
through the literature that it is a complication that does not depend on the medical standard or
technical level of each country.
Minor points
1. References 12-13 are papers on "malignant stenosis" and "postoperative surgery". Please
consider that the papers to be cited are "beneficial stenosis" and "after endoscopic treatment".
2. In conclusion, it is necessary to settle by RCT with balloon expansion, which is the mainstream
of the conventional method. However, due to the low frequency of complications, it may take
some time before clinical conclusions can be reached. It is hoped that you will give your thoughts
on when the incision method is better than balloon dilation.
That is all for my opinion on this manuscript.
Thank you.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I write you in regards to manuscript # ID bd7c3c98-a01a-4cd4-9ca2-85a4f30bb7fc “Ultrasoic
endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy" which you
submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript
has been denied publication in the BMC Gastroenterology.
The title of this manuscript is “Ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture
after variceal sclerotherapy ". The manuscript provides very interesting data, but it still needs
some considerable revision.
Major points
1. You lack detailed explanations on how to do it. For example, the endoscope used, the high
frequency generator, the equipment settings at some mode of incision, etc.
2. You lack a technical explanation. How to check the depth of incision and a guide of the
endoscopic findings.
3. Your dissertation is biased in citations. Reference 4 alone is not sufficient as an international
guideline. It is also advisable to refer to guidelines, recommendations and announcements
from the American Society of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, the American Society of
Gastroenterology, GUT, UEG, etc.
4. It shows the medical standards in China for benign esophageal stricture after EIS. However,
the frequency of EIS complications has not been shown internationally. It is necessary to show
through the literature that it is a complication that does not depend on the medical standard or
technical level of each country.
Minor points
1. References 12-13 are papers on "malignant stenosis" and "postoperative surgery". Please
consider that the papers to be cited are "beneficial stenosis" and "after endoscopic treatment".
2. In conclusion, it is necessary to settle by RCT with balloon expansion, which is the mainstream
of the conventional method. However, due to the low frequency of complications, it may take
some time before clinical conclusions can be reached. It is hoped that you will give your thoughts
on when the incision method is better than balloon dilation.
That is all for my opinion on this manuscript.
Thank you.
assistant