Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Splash M -knife versus Flush Knife BT in the technical ou tcomes of endoscopic 
submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Nov 2017  
 
Review er: Ichiro Oda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The authors compared the hemostatic ability of Splash M -knife during endoscopic submucosal 
dissection for early gastric cancer with that of Flush Knife BT. Although it is an interesting topic, 
several changes are needed to improve the overall quality of th is manuscript.  
 
<Comments>  
1. There might be an institutional learning curve during the study period. Although operator 
skill was considered, the difference of study period (initial phase vs late phase) might affect 
the outcomes, Please consider to include  it to one of covariates for propensity score 
matching. Or please comment on this effect in the Discussion section.  
2. The difference of electrosurgical unit (VIO 300D vs ICC 200) might affect the outcomes. 
Please consider to include it to one of covariate s for propensity score matching. Or please 
comment on this effect in the Discussion section.  
3. Please clarify the setting of electrosurgical unit in the Methods section.  
4. Please clarify the content of injection solution in the Methods section.  
5. The au thors are using two different abbreviations (ESD -F and ESD -C) for ESD with the 
conventional needle -type knife. Please revise this inconsistency.  
 
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.  
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 th e manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what  aspects require further 
assessment 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:  
Acceptable  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
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 r eply 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 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/lic enses/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: Splash M -knife versus Flush Knife BT in the technical ou tcomes of endoscopic 
submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Nov 2017  
 
Review er: Ichiro Oda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The authors compared the hemostatic ability of Splash M -knife during endoscopic submucosal 
dissection for early gastric cancer with that of Flush Knife BT. Although it is an interesting topic, 
several changes are needed to improve the overall quality of th is manuscript.  
 
<Comments>  
1. There might be an institutional learning curve during the study period. Although operator 
skill was considered, the difference of study period (initial phase vs late phase) might affect 
the outcomes, Please consider to include  it to one of covariates for propensity score 
matching. Or please comment on this effect in the Discussion section.  
2. The difference of electrosurgical unit (VIO 300D vs ICC 200) might affect the outcomes. 
Please consider to include it to one of covariate s for propensity score matching. Or please 
comment on this effect in the Discussion section.  
3. Please clarify the setting of electrosurgical unit in the Methods section.  
4. Please clarify the content of injection solution in the Methods section.  
5. The au thors are using two different abbreviations (ESD -F and ESD -C) for ESD with the 
conventional needle -type knife. Please revise this inconsistency.  
 
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.  
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 th e manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what  aspects require further 
assessment 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:  
Acceptable  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
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 r eply 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 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/lic enses/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: Splash M -knife versus Flush Knife BT in the technical ou tcomes of endoscopic 
submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a propensity score matching analysis  
 
Version: 0 Date: 21 Nov 2017  
 
Review er: Ichiro Oda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
The authors compared the hemostatic ability of Splash M -knife during endoscopic submucosal 
dissection for early gastric cancer with that of Flush Knife BT. Although it is an interesting topic, 
several changes are needed to improve the overall quality of th is manuscript.  
 
<Comments>  
1. There might be an institutional learning curve during the study period. Although operator 
skill was considered, the difference of study period (initial phase vs late phase) might affect 
the outcomes, Please consider to include  it to one of covariates for propensity score 
matching. Or please comment on this effect in the Discussion section.  
2. The difference of electrosurgical unit (VIO 300D vs ICC 200) might affect the outcomes. 
Please consider to include it to one of covariate s for propensity score matching. Or please 
comment on this effect in the Discussion section.  
3. Please clarify the setting of electrosurgical unit in the Methods section.  
4. Please clarify the content of injection solution in the Methods section.  
5. The au thors are using two different abbreviations (ESD -F and ESD -C) for ESD with the 
conventional needle -type knife. Please revise this inconsistency.  
 
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.  
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 th e manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what  aspects require further 
assessment 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:  
Acceptable  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the futu re? 
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 r eply 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 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/lic enses/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