Reviewer’ s report
Title: Gastropathy associated with lanthanum phosphate deposition that was endoscopically
tracked for 3 years. : a case report
Version: 2Date: 12 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has somewhat improved. However, the following points should be
considered again.
In Figure 3b (spectrum analysis), the peaks of lanthanum are very low. Was the analysis performed
in pleural times for different samples or different areas of one sample? The results should beconfirmed once again.
The discussion in Page 8 (Lines 3-17) is hard to understand what in the point:
The significance of the description "The spread was similar to the progressive atrophy …." (Lines
3-4) in unclear with regard to the following discussion of the authors.The "inflammation" in the end of Line 9 is not mentioned in Case presentation (Page 6, Lines 16-18) or in the legend of Figure 4.As for the lanthanum deposition in the extra-gastric sites (Lies 15-17), authors should review theprevious reports.
In Abstract (Page 3, Lines 5), the description "the information remains not widely known" seems
to be inappropriate because a lot of reports about gastric lanthanum deposition have already beenpublished up to now.
The methodological term should be described correctly:
In Page 4, Line 1, "energy dispersion X-ray analysis" should be "energy dispersive X-ray analysis"as Page 3, Line 2 from the bottom."SEM-EDX" is usually an abbreviation of "scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-rayspectroscopy", which should be described precisely in Page 6, Lines 4-5 and in the legend ofFigure 3a.
Does the description "thicker" in Page 6, Line 11 mean "more thickened mucosa"? More
appropriate description is required.
Was't the sentence "the drug is excreted into feces via bile" (Page 7, Line 10) a target of deletion
according to the reviewer's suggestion?
The legend "SEM images" of Figures 3c and d is inappropriate, which should be "element
mapping on the SEM images" as described in the main text (Page 6, Line 8).
In the picture of Figure 4c, intestinal metaplasia of the epithelium is not clearly identified.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscriptQuality 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, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 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 interestsReviewer 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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport 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 published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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: Gastropathy associated with lanthanum phosphate deposition that was endoscopically
tracked for 3 years. : a case report
Version: 2Date: 12 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has somewhat improved. However, the following points should be
considered again.
In Figure 3b (spectrum analysis), the peaks of lanthanum are very low. Was the analysis performed
in pleural times for different samples or different areas of one sample? The results should beconfirmed once again.
The discussion in Page 8 (Lines 3-17) is hard to understand what in the point:
The significance of the description "The spread was similar to the progressive atrophy …." (Lines
3-4) in unclear with regard to the following discussion of the authors.The "inflammation" in the end of Line 9 is not mentioned in Case presentation (Page 6, Lines 16-18) or in the legend of Figure 4.As for the lanthanum deposition in the extra-gastric sites (Lies 15-17), authors should review theprevious reports.
In Abstract (Page 3, Lines 5), the description "the information remains not widely known" seems
to be inappropriate because a lot of reports about gastric lanthanum deposition have already beenpublished up to now.
The methodological term should be described correctly:
In Page 4, Line 1, "energy dispersion X-ray analysis" should be "energy dispersive X-ray analysis"as Page 3, Line 2 from the bottom."SEM-EDX" is usually an abbreviation of "scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-rayspectroscopy", which should be described precisely in Page 6, Lines 4-5 and in the legend ofFigure 3a.
Does the description "thicker" in Page 6, Line 11 mean "more thickened mucosa"? More
appropriate description is required.
Was't the sentence "the drug is excreted into feces via bile" (Page 7, Line 10) a target of deletion
according to the reviewer's suggestion?
The legend "SEM images" of Figures 3c and d is inappropriate, which should be "element
mapping on the SEM images" as described in the main text (Page 6, Line 8).
In the picture of Figure 4c, intestinal metaplasia of the epithelium is not clearly identified.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscriptQuality 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, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 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 interestsReviewer 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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport 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 published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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: Gastropathy associated with lanthanum phosphate deposition that was endoscopically
tracked for 3 years. : a case report
Version: 2Date: 12 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
The quality of the manuscript has somewhat improved. However, the following points should be
considered again.
In Figure 3b (spectrum analysis), the peaks of lanthanum are very low. Was the analysis performed
in pleural times for different samples or different areas of one sample? The results should beconfirmed once again.
The discussion in Page 8 (Lines 3-17) is hard to understand what in the point:
The significance of the description "The spread was similar to the progressive atrophy …." (Lines
3-4) in unclear with regard to the following discussion of the authors.The "inflammation" in the end of Line 9 is not mentioned in Case presentation (Page 6, Lines 16-18) or in the legend of Figure 4.As for the lanthanum deposition in the extra-gastric sites (Lies 15-17), authors should review theprevious reports.
In Abstract (Page 3, Lines 5), the description "the information remains not widely known" seems
to be inappropriate because a lot of reports about gastric lanthanum deposition have already beenpublished up to now.
The methodological term should be described correctly:
In Page 4, Line 1, "energy dispersion X-ray analysis" should be "energy dispersive X-ray analysis"as Page 3, Line 2 from the bottom."SEM-EDX" is usually an abbreviation of "scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-rayspectroscopy", which should be described precisely in Page 6, Lines 4-5 and in the legend ofFigure 3a.
Does the description "thicker" in Page 6, Line 11 mean "more thickened mucosa"? More
appropriate description is required.
Was't the sentence "the drug is excreted into feces via bile" (Page 7, Line 10) a target of deletion
according to the reviewer's suggestion?
The legend "SEM images" of Figures 3c and d is inappropriate, which should be "element
mapping on the SEM images" as described in the main text (Page 6, Line 8).
In the picture of Figure 4c, intestinal metaplasia of the epithelium is not clearly identified.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscriptQuality 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, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, 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 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 interestsReviewer 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 manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport 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 published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. 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