Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of epinephrine versus 
hypertonic saline in patients taking antithrombotic agents: propensity -score -matching analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2019  
 
Reviewer: Osamu Goto  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is  a retrospective, non -randomized comparative study regarding the safety and efficacy of 
injection solution in a single center, by using a propensity -score matching. The followings may 
be taken into consideration.  
 
1. This is a comparative study, and the aim of this study is to compare the safety and 
efficacy of two injection solution in EMR. Therefore, the conclusion should be stated 
according to the aim, such as "two solutions were considered to be both safe and effec tive 
in colorectal EMR…."  
 
2. In the am of abstract, the subjective should be limited to in cases with antithrombotic 
agents to avoid misleading the readers.  
 
3. The reason for the imbalance in operators of procedures between the groups will be 
briefly ment ioned.  
 
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 necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn ade quately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy 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 the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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, fees, 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 journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acc epted f or 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://creativecommon s.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded 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: Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of epinephrine versus 
hypertonic saline in patients taking antithrombotic agents: propensity -score -matching analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2019  
 
Reviewer: Osamu Goto  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is  a retrospective, non -randomized comparative study regarding the safety and efficacy of 
injection solution in a single center, by using a propensity -score matching. The followings may 
be taken into consideration.  
 
1. This is a comparative study, and the aim of this study is to compare the safety and 
efficacy of two injection solution in EMR. Therefore, the conclusion should be stated 
according to the aim, such as "two solutions were considered to be both safe and effec tive 
in colorectal EMR…."  
 
2. In the am of abstract, the subjective should be limited to in cases with antithrombotic 
agents to avoid misleading the readers.  
 
3. The reason for the imbalance in operators of procedures between the groups will be 
briefly ment ioned.  
 
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 necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn ade quately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy 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 the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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, fees, 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 journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acc epted f or 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://creativecommon s.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded 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: Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of epinephrine versus 
hypertonic saline in patients taking antithrombotic agents: propensity -score -matching analysis  
 
Version: 1 Date: 03 Sep 2019  
 
Reviewer: Osamu Goto  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is  a retrospective, non -randomized comparative study regarding the safety and efficacy of 
injection solution in a single center, by using a propensity -score matching. The followings may 
be taken into consideration.  
 
1. This is a comparative study, and the aim of this study is to compare the safety and 
efficacy of two injection solution in EMR. Therefore, the conclusion should be stated 
according to the aim, such as "two solutions were considered to be both safe and effec tive 
in colorectal EMR…."  
 
2. In the am of abstract, the subjective should be limited to in cases with antithrombotic 
agents to avoid misleading the readers.  
 
3. The reason for the imbalance in operators of procedures between the groups will be 
briefly ment ioned.  
 
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 necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn ade quately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recomme nded, please speci fy 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 the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organisation that may in any way gain  or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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, fees, 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 journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is acc epted f or 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://creativecommon s.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant