Reviewer's report
Title:Digital image analysis is helpful in diagnosing gastric mesenchymal tumors
Version:1Date:8 December 2013
Reviewer: christian jenssen
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
yes
3. Are the data sound?
yes, taking into account the discussed limitations of the study.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
yes.
However I miss a discussion
1) of the clinical consequences of the data: is there any relevance of digital
image analysis for the decision to operate (or to biopsy) a respective
mesenchymal gastric tumor?
2) are there data on any other noninvasive diagnostic tools to characterize
mesenchymal gastric tumors (elastography, contrast enhanced EUS)?
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
yes, however the problem of selection was only touched.
I propose to add data on how many gastric subepithelial tumors have been
examined in the respective time period of the study. Which gastric subepithelial
tumors have not been operated on in this time period, and which criteria were
used to decide on operation? The authors only mention in their discussion, that
patients were selected for surgery according to the clinical
opinions and decisions of the medical doctors.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
yes
Level of interest: An article of importance 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:
No, I dont have any competing interests with regard to the article.
Reviewer's report
Title:Digital image analysis is helpful in diagnosing gastric mesenchymal tumors
Version:1Date:8 December 2013
Reviewer: christian jenssen
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
yes
3. Are the data sound?
yes, taking into account the discussed limitations of the study.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
yes.
However I miss a discussion
1) of the clinical consequences of the data: is there any relevance of digital
image analysis for the decision to operate (or to biopsy) a respective
mesenchymal gastric tumor?
2) are there data on any other noninvasive diagnostic tools to characterize
mesenchymal gastric tumors (elastography, contrast enhanced EUS)?
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
yes, however the problem of selection was only touched.
I propose to add data on how many gastric subepithelial tumors have been
examined in the respective time period of the study. Which gastric subepithelial
tumors have not been operated on in this time period, and which criteria were
used to decide on operation? The authors only mention in their discussion, that
patients were selected for surgery according to the clinical
opinions and decisions of the medical doctors.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
yes
Level of interest: An article of importance 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:
No, I dont have any competing interests with regard to the article.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Digital image analysis is helpful in diagnosing gastric mesenchymal tumors
Version:1Date:8 December 2013
Reviewer: christian jenssen
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
yes
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
yes
3. Are the data sound?
yes, taking into account the discussed limitations of the study.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
yes.
However I miss a discussion
1) of the clinical consequences of the data: is there any relevance of digital
image analysis for the decision to operate (or to biopsy) a respective
mesenchymal gastric tumor?
2) are there data on any other noninvasive diagnostic tools to characterize
mesenchymal gastric tumors (elastography, contrast enhanced EUS)?
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated?
yes, however the problem of selection was only touched.
I propose to add data on how many gastric subepithelial tumors have been
examined in the respective time period of the study. Which gastric subepithelial
tumors have not been operated on in this time period, and which criteria were
used to decide on operation? The authors only mention in their discussion, that
patients were selected for surgery according to the clinical
opinions and decisions of the medical doctors.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
yes
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
yes
9. Is the writing acceptable?
yes
Level of interest: An article of importance 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:
No, I dont have any competing interests with regard to the article.
assistant