Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 2 Date: 23 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this paper entitled “Effect
of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens obtained
by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from a single
center”. I think that some revisions are necessary for the manuscript. I hope that my comments
will be contribute to the revision.
1. What is the condition of wet-heparinized suction application?
2. How did the authors determine the number of puncture (according to ROSE or MOSE)?
3. What is the definition of complete tissue sampling?
4. How many patients were performed antithrombotic treatment?
5. In all tables, the parameter “statistics” (such as x2, or t) is unnecessary, and data of x2 analysis
were described as n (%).
6. (Table 2 and 3) Table 2 and 3 were difficult to understand. I think that Experimental group,
Control group, and P value should be set as the horizontal axis. Can authors combine table 2 and
3, and add the information of the number of punctures at first?
7. Authors cited only wet-heparinized suction papers. There were some papers of EUS-FNA with
Wet-suction technique. These papers should be referred at the first sentence of “Discussion”?
8. From the results of this study, wet-heparinized suction technique should be applied for the
first puncture?
9. In this study, there were not statistical difference in RBC contamination. From the result, it
is thought that heparin is unnecessary and that more tissue samples were collected owing to the
wet-suction technique. Otherwise, are there statistical difference of RBC contamination in the
first puncture?
Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 2 Date: 23 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this paper entitled “Effect
of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens obtained
by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from a single
center”. I think that some revisions are necessary for the manuscript. I hope that my comments
will be contribute to the revision.
1. What is the condition of wet-heparinized suction application?
2. How did the authors determine the number of puncture (according to ROSE or MOSE)?
3. What is the definition of complete tissue sampling?
4. How many patients were performed antithrombotic treatment?
5. In all tables, the parameter “statistics” (such as x2, or t) is unnecessary, and data of x2 analysis
were described as n (%).
6. (Table 2 and 3) Table 2 and 3 were difficult to understand. I think that Experimental group,
Control group, and P value should be set as the horizontal axis. Can authors combine table 2 and
3, and add the information of the number of punctures at first?
7. Authors cited only wet-heparinized suction papers. There were some papers of EUS-FNA with
Wet-suction technique. These papers should be referred at the first sentence of “Discussion”?
8. From the results of this study, wet-heparinized suction technique should be applied for the
first puncture?
9. In this study, there were not statistical difference in RBC contamination. From the result, it
is thought that heparin is unnecessary and that more tissue samples were collected owing to the
wet-suction technique. Otherwise, are there statistical difference of RBC contamination in the
first puncture?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Effect of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens
obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from
a single center
Version: 2 Date: 23 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Dear editor and authors, thank you for giving me the chance to review this paper entitled “Effect
of Wet-heparinized Suction on The Quality of Mediastinal Solid Tumor Specimens obtained
by Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Aspiration: a retrospective study from a single
center”. I think that some revisions are necessary for the manuscript. I hope that my comments
will be contribute to the revision.
1. What is the condition of wet-heparinized suction application?
2. How did the authors determine the number of puncture (according to ROSE or MOSE)?
3. What is the definition of complete tissue sampling?
4. How many patients were performed antithrombotic treatment?
5. In all tables, the parameter “statistics” (such as x2, or t) is unnecessary, and data of x2 analysis
were described as n (%).
6. (Table 2 and 3) Table 2 and 3 were difficult to understand. I think that Experimental group,
Control group, and P value should be set as the horizontal axis. Can authors combine table 2 and
3, and add the information of the number of punctures at first?
7. Authors cited only wet-heparinized suction papers. There were some papers of EUS-FNA with
Wet-suction technique. These papers should be referred at the first sentence of “Discussion”?
8. From the results of this study, wet-heparinized suction technique should be applied for the
first puncture?
9. In this study, there were not statistical difference in RBC contamination. From the result, it
is thought that heparin is unnecessary and that more tissue samples were collected owing to the
wet-suction technique. Otherwise, are there statistical difference of RBC contamination in the
first puncture?
assistant