Title: Immunohistochemical Staining for IMP3 in Patients with Duodenal Papilla Tumors:
Assessment of the Potential for Diagnosing Endoscopic Resectability and Predicting Prognosis
Version: 5 Date: 25 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised edition of your manuscript. I think the revisions have greatly improved
the quality of the manuscript, and the storyline and conclusions are easy to follow. However, I
have two important comments that need to be adressed:
1) The quality of the histological images in figure 3 is not sufficient for publication. The images
appear blurred with an unadjusted whitebalance. If it is impossible to obtain high quality images
using a camera mounted on a microscope, could you perhaps use a digital slide scanner instead?
2) Figure 1 depicting a flowchart of the included patients is very informative. However, all text
and patient-numbers should be included inside boxes to improve the visual impression of the
flowchart, even though some of the text would be repeated in seperate boxes (ie. #No evidence
of(...)", "Adenoma or carcinoma (...)","adenoma", "Tis and T1", "T2", and "T3"). Furthermore,
I would relabel the "Analysis"-box to "Patients included in study" or something similar.
Good luck with the publication.
Title: Immunohistochemical Staining for IMP3 in Patients with Duodenal Papilla Tumors:
Assessment of the Potential for Diagnosing Endoscopic Resectability and Predicting Prognosis
Version: 5 Date: 25 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised edition of your manuscript. I think the revisions have greatly improved
the quality of the manuscript, and the storyline and conclusions are easy to follow. However, I
have two important comments that need to be adressed:
1) The quality of the histological images in figure 3 is not sufficient for publication. The images
appear blurred with an unadjusted whitebalance. If it is impossible to obtain high quality images
using a camera mounted on a microscope, could you perhaps use a digital slide scanner instead?
2) Figure 1 depicting a flowchart of the included patients is very informative. However, all text
and patient-numbers should be included inside boxes to improve the visual impression of the
flowchart, even though some of the text would be repeated in seperate boxes (ie. #No evidence
of(...)", "Adenoma or carcinoma (...)","adenoma", "Tis and T1", "T2", and "T3"). Furthermore,
I would relabel the "Analysis"-box to "Patients included in study" or something similar.
Good luck with the publication.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Immunohistochemical Staining for IMP3 in Patients with Duodenal Papilla Tumors:
Assessment of the Potential for Diagnosing Endoscopic Resectability and Predicting Prognosis
Version: 5 Date: 25 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the revised edition of your manuscript. I think the revisions have greatly improved
the quality of the manuscript, and the storyline and conclusions are easy to follow. However, I
have two important comments that need to be adressed:
1) The quality of the histological images in figure 3 is not sufficient for publication. The images
appear blurred with an unadjusted whitebalance. If it is impossible to obtain high quality images
using a camera mounted on a microscope, could you perhaps use a digital slide scanner instead?
2) Figure 1 depicting a flowchart of the included patients is very informative. However, all text
and patient-numbers should be included inside boxes to improve the visual impression of the
flowchart, even though some of the text would be repeated in seperate boxes (ie. #No evidence
of(...)", "Adenoma or carcinoma (...)","adenoma", "Tis and T1", "T2", and "T3"). Furthermore,
I would relabel the "Analysis"-box to "Patients included in study" or something similar.
Good luck with the publication.
assistant