Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 4 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Finally, I think that this manuscript will be accepted.
However, I still have a few concerns.
1. How did you choose wet-heparinized suction technique or dry method? Random?
2. Could you add the result of comparison of antithrombotic treatment in Table 1?
3. Could you revise the Table 2 as below?
Experimental group Control group P
Number of punctures, n                                         90                                 90
Successfull specimen, n (%)                53 (58.9)                38 (42.2)           <0.05
Completeness of the tissue, n (%)     49 (54.4)                 30 (33.3)              <0.05
Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 4 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Finally, I think that this manuscript will be accepted.
However, I still have a few concerns.
1. How did you choose wet-heparinized suction technique or dry method? Random?
2. Could you add the result of comparison of antithrombotic treatment in Table 1?
3. Could you revise the Table 2 as below?
Experimental group Control group P
Number of punctures, n                                         90                                 90
Successfull specimen, n (%)                53 (58.9)                38 (42.2)           <0.05
Completeness of the tissue, n (%)     49 (54.4)                 30 (33.3)              <0.05
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 4 Date: 26 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for revising the manuscript. Finally, I think that this manuscript will be accepted.
However, I still have a few concerns.
1. How did you choose wet-heparinized suction technique or dry method? Random?
2. Could you add the result of comparison of antithrombotic treatment in Table 1?
3. Could you revise the Table 2 as below?
Experimental group Control group P
Number of punctures, n                                         90                                 90
Successfull specimen, n (%)                53 (58.9)                38 (42.2)           <0.05
Completeness of the tissue, n (%)     49 (54.4)                 30 (33.3)              <0.05
assistant