Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous 
cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Jiann-Hwa Chen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The novelty is limited. The EUS features of pancreatic serous and mucinous cystadenoma is 
well known. It's a pity that the authors cannot differentiate MCN from macrocystic SCAs based 
on this study owing to lim ited sample size. As we know, the final diagnosis of pancreatic cystic 
neoplasm depends upon the histological result and the images studies are the reference 
information only. If there is any diagnostic modality having high sensitivity and high specificity  
to tell macrocystic SCNs from MCN, some surgical interventions may be avoided.  
2. Despite of small sample size, some results share us the important key points about the 
differentiation between the SCNs and MCNs such as head/neck portion, lobulated, this wa ll and 
less than two septa.  
3. I wonder how to cope with the interobserver discrepancy between the two endosonographers 
and how about the kappa value  
 
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 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of wr itten 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 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 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 o f 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 th at I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will 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 under 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: A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous 
cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Jiann-Hwa Chen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The novelty is limited. The EUS features of pancreatic serous and mucinous cystadenoma is 
well known. It's a pity that the authors cannot differentiate MCN from macrocystic SCAs based 
on this study owing to lim ited sample size. As we know, the final diagnosis of pancreatic cystic 
neoplasm depends upon the histological result and the images studies are the reference 
information only. If there is any diagnostic modality having high sensitivity and high specificity  
to tell macrocystic SCNs from MCN, some surgical interventions may be avoided.  
2. Despite of small sample size, some results share us the important key points about the 
differentiation between the SCNs and MCNs such as head/neck portion, lobulated, this wa ll and 
less than two septa.  
3. I wonder how to cope with the interobserver discrepancy between the two endosonographers 
and how about the kappa value  
 
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 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of wr itten 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 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 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 o f 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 th at I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will 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 under 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: A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous 
cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms  
 
Version: 0 Date: 05 Apr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Jiann-Hwa Chen  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1. The novelty is limited. The EUS features of pancreatic serous and mucinous cystadenoma is 
well known. It's a pity that the authors cannot differentiate MCN from macrocystic SCAs based 
on this study owing to lim ited sample size. As we know, the final diagnosis of pancreatic cystic 
neoplasm depends upon the histological result and the images studies are the reference 
information only. If there is any diagnostic modality having high sensitivity and high specificity  
to tell macrocystic SCNs from MCN, some surgical interventions may be avoided.  
2. Despite of small sample size, some results share us the important key points about the 
differentiation between the SCNs and MCNs such as head/neck portion, lobulated, this wa ll and 
less than two septa.  
3. I wonder how to cope with the interobserver discrepancy between the two endosonographers 
and how about the kappa value  
 
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 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.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
Quality of wr itten 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 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 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 o f 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 th at I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will 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 under 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