Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant e sophageal fistula combined with 
stricture  
 
Version: 1 Date: 20 May 2020  
Reviewer's report:  
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including contro ls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the resul ts reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further  
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed the reviewers´ concerns and the overall 
quality of the manuscript has improve.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIO NS:  
There are some minor issues to address: in line 12 it should say median and IQR instead of 
mean. The abstract is still not clear enough: the number of cases included in each group is not 
clearly stated (this information should be included in the resul ts paragraph).  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Although the manuscript has improved in quality, there are some issues related to the 
presentation of the results in the abstract, some English editing mistakes (line 14 "corrode?", line 
55 "were" instead of  "was", etc. The sentence  in lines 48 -49 of the discussion is not clear 
enough and should be rewritten.  
 
 
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 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 t he manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 financially from the public ation 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 curre ntly 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 in terests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please g ive details below.  
 
This revie wer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribu tion License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the  editorial office 
before completing the review.If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant e sophageal fistula combined with 
stricture  
 
Version: 1 Date: 20 May 2020  
Reviewer's report:  
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including contro ls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the resul ts reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further  
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed the reviewers´ concerns and the overall 
quality of the manuscript has improve.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIO NS:  
There are some minor issues to address: in line 12 it should say median and IQR instead of 
mean. The abstract is still not clear enough: the number of cases included in each group is not 
clearly stated (this information should be included in the resul ts paragraph).  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Although the manuscript has improved in quality, there are some issues related to the 
presentation of the results in the abstract, some English editing mistakes (line 14 "corrode?", line 
55 "were" instead of  "was", etc. The sentence  in lines 48 -49 of the discussion is not clear 
enough and should be rewritten.  
 
 
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 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 t he manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 financially from the public ation 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 curre ntly 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 in terests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please g ive details below.  
 
This revie wer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribu tion License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the  editorial office 
before completing the review.If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant e sophageal fistula combined with 
stricture  
 
Version: 1 Date: 20 May 2020  
Reviewer's report:  
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including contro ls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the resul ts reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further  
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed the reviewers´ concerns and the overall 
quality of the manuscript has improve.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIO NS:  
There are some minor issues to address: in line 12 it should say median and IQR instead of 
mean. The abstract is still not clear enough: the number of cases included in each group is not 
clearly stated (this information should be included in the resul ts paragraph).  
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Although the manuscript has improved in quality, there are some issues related to the 
presentation of the results in the abstract, some English editing mistakes (line 14 "corrode?", line 
55 "were" instead of  "was", etc. The sentence  in lines 48 -49 of the discussion is not clear 
enough and should be rewritten.  
 
 
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 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 t he manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, 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:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 financially from the public ation 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 curre ntly 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 in terests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please g ive details below.  
 
This revie wer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribu tion License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made  available under an Open 
Access Creative Commons CC -BY License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ) if this 
manuscript is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the  editorial office 
before completing the review.If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
assistant