Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic steroid injection for prophylaxis
of esophageal stenoses after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection
Version:1Date:25 July 2014
Reviewer: Hendrik Manner
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
this is a very interesting paper on an important issue.
There is only two minor comments:
The case number for final analysis was obviously not reached (should have been
16 per group). Please comment on this in the Discussion section, because it
weakens the validity of the study.
Also, some endoscopic images would be fine.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic steroid injection for prophylaxis
of esophageal stenoses after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection
Version:1Date:25 July 2014
Reviewer: Hendrik Manner
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
this is a very interesting paper on an important issue.
There is only two minor comments:
The case number for final analysis was obviously not reached (should have been
16 per group). Please comment on this in the Discussion section, because it
weakens the validity of the study.
Also, some endoscopic images would be fine.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic steroid injection for prophylaxis
of esophageal stenoses after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection
Version:1Date:25 July 2014
Reviewer: Hendrik Manner
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
this is a very interesting paper on an important issue.
There is only two minor comments:
The case number for final analysis was obviously not reached (should have been
16 per group). Please comment on this in the Discussion section, because it
weakens the validity of the study.
Also, some endoscopic images would be fine.
Level of interest: An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
none
assistant