Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Length of Barrett's Segment Predicts Failure of Eradication in Radiofrequency Ablation 
for Barrett's Esophagus: A Retrospective Cohort Study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Mar 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Daniel  Tong  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I am happy to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have the following comments:  
 
1. This is a well written manuscript.  
 
2. There are some limitations including single centre study, population is relatively small and 
retrospective in nature.  
 
3. It is easy to understand why longer segment of BE may associated with hi gher failure rate. 
However, it is rather difficult to explain why hypertension is associated with higher failure rate. 
Would it be due to small study population or just statistical findings?  
 
4. For practical issue, even if we identify patients with high r isk of failure, we still cannot write 
off patient for treatment because we do not know which patient per se will be responsive.  
 
5. The manuscript message is good that if someone receives three episodes of treatment but still 
has residual disease, plus wit h high failure risk factors, then probably can suggest the patient not 
to have further RFA but should seek other treatment modality. But again, it is difficult to predict 
which one will be responsive on fourth intervention.  
 
6. A median of three episodes t o achieve complete eradication is a bit high and related to this is 
the financial concern. If there is no sponsorship for the present study, is it patient has to pay all 
the treatment cost?  
 
7. How would the authors decide on protocol biopsy scheme (the fou r quadrant biopsy) or 
targeted biopsy protocol (e.g. use of acetic acid spray to target the biopsy site) on design of the 
present study?  
 
8. Lastly, not understand why the complete eradication rate is lower compare to other centres?  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 any 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.  
 
Not relevant t o this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please i ndicate 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, 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 organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially fro m 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 understand that my name wil l 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 und er 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:  Length of Barrett's Segment Predicts Failure of Eradication in Radiofrequency Ablation 
for Barrett's Esophagus: A Retrospective Cohort Study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Mar 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Daniel  Tong  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I am happy to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have the following comments:  
 
1. This is a well written manuscript.  
 
2. There are some limitations including single centre study, population is relatively small and 
retrospective in nature.  
 
3. It is easy to understand why longer segment of BE may associated with hi gher failure rate. 
However, it is rather difficult to explain why hypertension is associated with higher failure rate. 
Would it be due to small study population or just statistical findings?  
 
4. For practical issue, even if we identify patients with high r isk of failure, we still cannot write 
off patient for treatment because we do not know which patient per se will be responsive.  
 
5. The manuscript message is good that if someone receives three episodes of treatment but still 
has residual disease, plus wit h high failure risk factors, then probably can suggest the patient not 
to have further RFA but should seek other treatment modality. But again, it is difficult to predict 
which one will be responsive on fourth intervention.  
 
6. A median of three episodes t o achieve complete eradication is a bit high and related to this is 
the financial concern. If there is no sponsorship for the present study, is it patient has to pay all 
the treatment cost?  
 
7. How would the authors decide on protocol biopsy scheme (the fou r quadrant biopsy) or 
targeted biopsy protocol (e.g. use of acetic acid spray to target the biopsy site) on design of the 
present study?  
 
8. Lastly, not understand why the complete eradication rate is lower compare to other centres?  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 any 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.  
 
Not relevant t o this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please i ndicate 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, 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 organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially fro m 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 understand that my name wil l 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 und er 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:  Length of Barrett's Segment Predicts Failure of Eradication in Radiofrequency Ablation 
for Barrett's Esophagus: A Retrospective Cohort Study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Mar 2018 
 
Reviewer:  Daniel  Tong  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
I am happy to have the opportunity to review this manuscript. I have the following comments:  
 
1. This is a well written manuscript.  
 
2. There are some limitations including single centre study, population is relatively small and 
retrospective in nature.  
 
3. It is easy to understand why longer segment of BE may associated with hi gher failure rate. 
However, it is rather difficult to explain why hypertension is associated with higher failure rate. 
Would it be due to small study population or just statistical findings?  
 
4. For practical issue, even if we identify patients with high r isk of failure, we still cannot write 
off patient for treatment because we do not know which patient per se will be responsive.  
 
5. The manuscript message is good that if someone receives three episodes of treatment but still 
has residual disease, plus wit h high failure risk factors, then probably can suggest the patient not 
to have further RFA but should seek other treatment modality. But again, it is difficult to predict 
which one will be responsive on fourth intervention.  
 
6. A median of three episodes t o achieve complete eradication is a bit high and related to this is 
the financial concern. If there is no sponsorship for the present study, is it patient has to pay all 
the treatment cost?  
 
7. How would the authors decide on protocol biopsy scheme (the fou r quadrant biopsy) or 
targeted biopsy protocol (e.g. use of acetic acid spray to target the biopsy site) on design of the 
present study?  
 
8. Lastly, not understand why the complete eradication rate is lower compare to other centres?  
 
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.  
 
No 
 
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 any 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.  
 
Not relevant t o this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please i ndicate 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, 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 organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially fro m 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 understand that my name wil l 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 und er 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