Reviewer’ s report
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with
stricture
Version: 0Date: 02 Feb 2020
Reviewer: Hai-Bin Shi
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the technique of using the covered stent and tubes for the management of
esophageal fistula combined with stricture. This study compared the this technique withconventional three tubes technique and found that the stent method is better than the tube method,as more patients could resume normal diet in the stent group. The stent technique the authors'provided is good. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it could be accepted.
Title: OK
Abstract:In the methods section: the patients were divided into two groups, the patients' numbers in eachgroup are not mentioned.
Introduction:
This part should be rewritten and divided into two or three paragraphs.The current treatment for the fistula combined with stricture should be mentioned.Materials and Methods:1. Patient selection: The time to start normal diet in each group should be stated.
2. Three tubes placement: The sizes of the pigtail or straight catheter should be mentioned.
3. Covered esophageal stent placement:3.1 The stent must be placed after the abscess drainage catheter insertion, thus there must be a gapbetween the fistula wall and the stent due to the catheter. How to ensure the fistula could be closedcompletely.3.2 If the fistula could be closed by the covered stent completely after the procedure, it isunnecessary to insert a feeding tube.
Results:
1. General information: the patients received chemo- +/-radio-therapy in each group should bestated, not the whole number.2. Interventional procedure outcomes:2.1 26 patients received 42 stents. Please explain why. Long strictures, stent stenosis or stentmalposition?2.2 The indications to remove the stent should be mentioned.3. Complications:3.1 The first sentence said no death occurred preoperatively; however, in the abstract: oneperioperative death occurred.
3.2 How to adjust the migrated stent? Using a string or hook?
Discussion:
This part should be rewritten. The first paragraph should not describe the similar things as theintroduction. The other paragraphs should not repeat the contents of the results part. Comparisonwith other studies is needed.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with
stricture
Version: 0Date: 02 Feb 2020
Reviewer: Hai-Bin Shi
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the technique of using the covered stent and tubes for the management of
esophageal fistula combined with stricture. This study compared the this technique withconventional three tubes technique and found that the stent method is better than the tube method,as more patients could resume normal diet in the stent group. The stent technique the authors'provided is good. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it could be accepted.
Title: OK
Abstract:In the methods section: the patients were divided into two groups, the patients' numbers in eachgroup are not mentioned.
Introduction:
This part should be rewritten and divided into two or three paragraphs.The current treatment for the fistula combined with stricture should be mentioned.Materials and Methods:1. Patient selection: The time to start normal diet in each group should be stated.
2. Three tubes placement: The sizes of the pigtail or straight catheter should be mentioned.
3. Covered esophageal stent placement:3.1 The stent must be placed after the abscess drainage catheter insertion, thus there must be a gapbetween the fistula wall and the stent due to the catheter. How to ensure the fistula could be closedcompletely.3.2 If the fistula could be closed by the covered stent completely after the procedure, it isunnecessary to insert a feeding tube.
Results:
1. General information: the patients received chemo- +/-radio-therapy in each group should bestated, not the whole number.2. Interventional procedure outcomes:2.1 26 patients received 42 stents. Please explain why. Long strictures, stent stenosis or stentmalposition?2.2 The indications to remove the stent should be mentioned.3. Complications:3.1 The first sentence said no death occurred preoperatively; however, in the abstract: oneperioperative death occurred.
3.2 How to adjust the migrated stent? Using a string or hook?
Discussion:
This part should be rewritten. The first paragraph should not describe the similar things as theintroduction. The other paragraphs should not repeat the contents of the results part. Comparisonwith other studies is needed.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto 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: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with
stricture
Version: 0Date: 02 Feb 2020
Reviewer: Hai-Bin Shi
Reviewer's report:
The authors described the technique of using the covered stent and tubes for the management of
esophageal fistula combined with stricture. This study compared the this technique withconventional three tubes technique and found that the stent method is better than the tube method,as more patients could resume normal diet in the stent group. The stent technique the authors'provided is good. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it could be accepted.
Title: OK
Abstract:In the methods section: the patients were divided into two groups, the patients' numbers in eachgroup are not mentioned.
Introduction:
This part should be rewritten and divided into two or three paragraphs.The current treatment for the fistula combined with stricture should be mentioned.Materials and Methods:1. Patient selection: The time to start normal diet in each group should be stated.
2. Three tubes placement: The sizes of the pigtail or straight catheter should be mentioned.
3. Covered esophageal stent placement:3.1 The stent must be placed after the abscess drainage catheter insertion, thus there must be a gapbetween the fistula wall and the stent due to the catheter. How to ensure the fistula could be closedcompletely.3.2 If the fistula could be closed by the covered stent completely after the procedure, it isunnecessary to insert a feeding tube.
Results:
1. General information: the patients received chemo- +/-radio-therapy in each group should bestated, not the whole number.2. Interventional procedure outcomes:2.1 26 patients received 42 stents. Please explain why. Long strictures, stent stenosis or stentmalposition?2.2 The indications to remove the stent should be mentioned.3. Complications:3.1 The first sentence said no death occurred preoperatively; however, in the abstract: oneperioperative death occurred.
3.2 How to adjust the migrated stent? Using a string or hook?
Discussion:
This part should be rewritten. The first paragraph should not describe the similar things as theintroduction. The other paragraphs should not repeat the contents of the results part. Comparisonwith other studies is needed.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre 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.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant