Title: Additive effect of evaluating microsurface and microvascular patterns using magnifying
endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in gastric cancer: a post hoc analysis of a single- center
observational study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for collecting nice data on the important topic. I have some concerns regarding
the manuscript which are as follows:
Major
1. I cannot see the information about control group (true negatives – non-cancerous lesions/non-
cancerous parts of the resected cancerous lesions confirmed in the histopathological assessment)
how was it selected? It is crucial for the analysis performed in the study. If only photographs
of parts of the lesions were assessed, was it confronted with histopathology (actual spot that
was photographed)? If so it should be stated in methods section. If not the results are actually
agreement with the experts who selected and confirmed photographs of parts of the lesions being
neoplastic and non-neoplastic not actual analysis of cancerous and non-cancerous lesions/tissue.
2. In the Evaluation criteria of methods section authors are explaining how the agreement was
assessed however it should be corrected. That data has to be showed and compared for example
as Kappa value (not as percentage) such as in other research.
Taveira F et al. The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.
Endoscopy. 2022 Jan;54(1):45-51. doi: 10.1055/a-1331-4325. Methods, result and discussion
should be modified accordingly.
3. Table 4. If analysis is not comparing only MS and MV data regarding MS+MV vs MS alone
should be also provided.
Minor
1. In the Methods section no data regarding histopathological classification is provided (for
example diagnosis of cancer according to Vienna classification).
2. Methods section sentence “The VS classification system was used for diagnosis” of lesions?
3. Methods section: there is no need to explain what accuracy (ACC) is. The authors should
explain all values (NPV, PPV, sensitivity, specificity) or none of them.
4. Methods section sentence “H. pylori-uninfected cases were defined as follows:…” the patient
should met one or all of the criteria? – it should be clarified. Also, patients who did not meet
the “H. pylori-infected with eradication group” criteria were infected without eradication? It
should be stated.
5. Results – part” after adding the history of H. pylori infection to the background characteristics
of the patients included in the previous study [12].” Is unnecessary.
6. Discussion section: Two sentence ale doubled “While some previous reports have indicated
that gastric cancer can be diagnosed based on MV alone [9, 10],” and “some studies have
reported that assessments based on MV alone are feasible for diagnosis [9–11].” Also, it should
be clarified if reference 11 is suitable or not.
7. Table – please clarify the “gastric tube” term.
Title: Additive effect of evaluating microsurface and microvascular patterns using magnifying
endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in gastric cancer: a post hoc analysis of a single- center
observational study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for collecting nice data on the important topic. I have some concerns regarding
the manuscript which are as follows:
Major
1. I cannot see the information about control group (true negatives – non-cancerous lesions/non-
cancerous parts of the resected cancerous lesions confirmed in the histopathological assessment)
how was it selected? It is crucial for the analysis performed in the study. If only photographs
of parts of the lesions were assessed, was it confronted with histopathology (actual spot that
was photographed)? If so it should be stated in methods section. If not the results are actually
agreement with the experts who selected and confirmed photographs of parts of the lesions being
neoplastic and non-neoplastic not actual analysis of cancerous and non-cancerous lesions/tissue.
2. In the Evaluation criteria of methods section authors are explaining how the agreement was
assessed however it should be corrected. That data has to be showed and compared for example
as Kappa value (not as percentage) such as in other research.
Taveira F et al. The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.
Endoscopy. 2022 Jan;54(1):45-51. doi: 10.1055/a-1331-4325. Methods, result and discussion
should be modified accordingly.
3. Table 4. If analysis is not comparing only MS and MV data regarding MS+MV vs MS alone
should be also provided.
Minor
1. In the Methods section no data regarding histopathological classification is provided (for
example diagnosis of cancer according to Vienna classification).
2. Methods section sentence “The VS classification system was used for diagnosis” of lesions?
3. Methods section: there is no need to explain what accuracy (ACC) is. The authors should
explain all values (NPV, PPV, sensitivity, specificity) or none of them.
4. Methods section sentence “H. pylori-uninfected cases were defined as follows:…” the patient
should met one or all of the criteria? – it should be clarified. Also, patients who did not meet
the “H. pylori-infected with eradication group” criteria were infected without eradication? It
should be stated.
5. Results – part” after adding the history of H. pylori infection to the background characteristics
of the patients included in the previous study [12].” Is unnecessary.
6. Discussion section: Two sentence ale doubled “While some previous reports have indicated
that gastric cancer can be diagnosed based on MV alone [9, 10],” and “some studies have
reported that assessments based on MV alone are feasible for diagnosis [9–11].” Also, it should
be clarified if reference 11 is suitable or not.
7. Table – please clarify the “gastric tube” term.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Additive effect of evaluating microsurface and microvascular patterns using magnifying
endoscopy with narrow-band imaging in gastric cancer: a post hoc analysis of a single- center
observational study
Version: 1 Date: 28 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
Congratulations for collecting nice data on the important topic. I have some concerns regarding
the manuscript which are as follows:
Major
1. I cannot see the information about control group (true negatives – non-cancerous lesions/non-
cancerous parts of the resected cancerous lesions confirmed in the histopathological assessment)
how was it selected? It is crucial for the analysis performed in the study. If only photographs
of parts of the lesions were assessed, was it confronted with histopathology (actual spot that
was photographed)? If so it should be stated in methods section. If not the results are actually
agreement with the experts who selected and confirmed photographs of parts of the lesions being
neoplastic and non-neoplastic not actual analysis of cancerous and non-cancerous lesions/tissue.
2. In the Evaluation criteria of methods section authors are explaining how the agreement was
assessed however it should be corrected. That data has to be showed and compared for example
as Kappa value (not as percentage) such as in other research.
Taveira F et al. The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.
Endoscopy. 2022 Jan;54(1):45-51. doi: 10.1055/a-1331-4325. Methods, result and discussion
should be modified accordingly.
3. Table 4. If analysis is not comparing only MS and MV data regarding MS+MV vs MS alone
should be also provided.
Minor
1. In the Methods section no data regarding histopathological classification is provided (for
example diagnosis of cancer according to Vienna classification).
2. Methods section sentence “The VS classification system was used for diagnosis” of lesions?
3. Methods section: there is no need to explain what accuracy (ACC) is. The authors should
explain all values (NPV, PPV, sensitivity, specificity) or none of them.
4. Methods section sentence “H. pylori-uninfected cases were defined as follows:…” the patient
should met one or all of the criteria? – it should be clarified. Also, patients who did not meet
the “H. pylori-infected with eradication group” criteria were infected without eradication? It
should be stated.
5. Results – part” after adding the history of H. pylori infection to the background characteristics
of the patients included in the previous study [12].” Is unnecessary.
6. Discussion section: Two sentence ale doubled “While some previous reports have indicated
that gastric cancer can be diagnosed based on MV alone [9, 10],” and “some studies have
reported that assessments based on MV alone are feasible for diagnosis [9–11].” Also, it should
be clarified if reference 11 is suitable or not.
7. Table – please clarify the “gastric tube” term.
assistant