Reviewer ’s report  
Title: Recurrent esophageal stricture from previous caustic ingestion tre ated with 40 -year 
selfdilation: case report and review of literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Harkirat Singh  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This is an interesting case of self dilation. Below are some of my comments.  
 
1. Title: Title can be modified as "Recurrent esophageal stricture from previous caustic ingestion, 
treated with 40 years of self dilation: case report and revi ew of literature"  
2. The background part can be labelled as introduction and can be shortened.  
3. Throughout the manuscript, there are a lot of english spelling and grammatical errors. Would 
request the authors to improve english and then re -submit the art icle. I lost interest in reading 
due to so many errors.  
4. The discussion can be written in a better flow and in more than 1 paragraph. 1 para for 
quantifying the problem. 1 paragraph for current endoscopic practices and potential other 
treatments like ste roid injections/mitomycin and surgical approach. Then defining a resistant 
stricture, % of strictures that are resistant and then forming a base to say that self dilation in 
feasible etc. In this day, it is difficult to convince any GI doctors to go this r oute. So, 
discussion should focus on strong data in favor of safety and outcomes of self dilation to make 
a good case for it. Again, this would be applicable in very selective group of patients who 
have endoscopically resistant benign strictures, and/or po or candidates for anesthesia or cost 
issues.  
 
Please review these two papers by same authors to add to your discussion.  
"Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Nov;58(11):3218 -23. doi: 10.1007/s10620 -013-2822 -7. Epub 2013 Aug 8.  
Self-dilation as a treatment for resistant, beni gn esophageal strictures.  
Dzeletovic I1, Fleischer DE, Crowell MD, Pannala R, Harris LA, Ramirez FC, Burdick GE, 
Rentz LA, Spratley RV Jr, Helling SD, Alexander JA."  
 
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Feb;56(2):435 -40. doi: 10.1007/s10620 -010-1503 -z. Epub 2011 Jan 8.  
Self dilation as a treatment for resistant benign esophageal strictures: outcome, technique, and 
quality of life assessment.  
Dzeletovic I1, Fleischer DE, Crowell MD, Kim HJ, Harris LA, Burdick GE, McLaughlin RR, 
Spratley RV Jr, Sharma VK.  
 
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.  
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical revi ew? 
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 t he statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
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  
organisati on 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 manuscrip t, 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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I a gree 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: Recurrent esophageal stricture from previous caustic ingestion tre ated with 40 -year 
selfdilation: case report and review of literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Harkirat Singh  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This is an interesting case of self dilation. Below are some of my comments.  
 
1. Title: Title can be modified as "Recurrent esophageal stricture from previous caustic ingestion, 
treated with 40 years of self dilation: case report and revi ew of literature"  
2. The background part can be labelled as introduction and can be shortened.  
3. Throughout the manuscript, there are a lot of english spelling and grammatical errors. Would 
request the authors to improve english and then re -submit the art icle. I lost interest in reading 
due to so many errors.  
4. The discussion can be written in a better flow and in more than 1 paragraph. 1 para for 
quantifying the problem. 1 paragraph for current endoscopic practices and potential other 
treatments like ste roid injections/mitomycin and surgical approach. Then defining a resistant 
stricture, % of strictures that are resistant and then forming a base to say that self dilation in 
feasible etc. In this day, it is difficult to convince any GI doctors to go this r oute. So, 
discussion should focus on strong data in favor of safety and outcomes of self dilation to make 
a good case for it. Again, this would be applicable in very selective group of patients who 
have endoscopically resistant benign strictures, and/or po or candidates for anesthesia or cost 
issues.  
 
Please review these two papers by same authors to add to your discussion.  
"Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Nov;58(11):3218 -23. doi: 10.1007/s10620 -013-2822 -7. Epub 2013 Aug 8.  
Self-dilation as a treatment for resistant, beni gn esophageal strictures.  
Dzeletovic I1, Fleischer DE, Crowell MD, Pannala R, Harris LA, Ramirez FC, Burdick GE, 
Rentz LA, Spratley RV Jr, Helling SD, Alexander JA."  
 
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Feb;56(2):435 -40. doi: 10.1007/s10620 -010-1503 -z. Epub 2011 Jan 8.  
Self dilation as a treatment for resistant benign esophageal strictures: outcome, technique, and 
quality of life assessment.  
Dzeletovic I1, Fleischer DE, Crowell MD, Kim HJ, Harris LA, Burdick GE, McLaughlin RR, 
Spratley RV Jr, Sharma VK.  
 
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.  
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical revi ew? 
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 t he statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
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  
organisati on 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 manuscrip t, 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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I a gree 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: Recurrent esophageal stricture from previous caustic ingestion tre ated with 40 -year 
selfdilation: case report and review of literature  
 
Version: 0 Date: 16 Oct 2016  
 
Reviewer: Harkirat Singh  
 
Reviewer's report:  
This is an interesting case of self dilation. Below are some of my comments.  
 
1. Title: Title can be modified as "Recurrent esophageal stricture from previous caustic ingestion, 
treated with 40 years of self dilation: case report and revi ew of literature"  
2. The background part can be labelled as introduction and can be shortened.  
3. Throughout the manuscript, there are a lot of english spelling and grammatical errors. Would 
request the authors to improve english and then re -submit the art icle. I lost interest in reading 
due to so many errors.  
4. The discussion can be written in a better flow and in more than 1 paragraph. 1 para for 
quantifying the problem. 1 paragraph for current endoscopic practices and potential other 
treatments like ste roid injections/mitomycin and surgical approach. Then defining a resistant 
stricture, % of strictures that are resistant and then forming a base to say that self dilation in 
feasible etc. In this day, it is difficult to convince any GI doctors to go this r oute. So, 
discussion should focus on strong data in favor of safety and outcomes of self dilation to make 
a good case for it. Again, this would be applicable in very selective group of patients who 
have endoscopically resistant benign strictures, and/or po or candidates for anesthesia or cost 
issues.  
 
Please review these two papers by same authors to add to your discussion.  
"Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Nov;58(11):3218 -23. doi: 10.1007/s10620 -013-2822 -7. Epub 2013 Aug 8.  
Self-dilation as a treatment for resistant, beni gn esophageal strictures.  
Dzeletovic I1, Fleischer DE, Crowell MD, Pannala R, Harris LA, Ramirez FC, Burdick GE, 
Rentz LA, Spratley RV Jr, Helling SD, Alexander JA."  
 
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Feb;56(2):435 -40. doi: 10.1007/s10620 -010-1503 -z. Epub 2011 Jan 8.  
Self dilation as a treatment for resistant benign esophageal strictures: outcome, technique, and 
quality of life assessment.  
Dzeletovic I1, Fleischer DE, Crowell MD, Kim HJ, Harris LA, Burdick GE, McLaughlin RR, 
Spratley RV Jr, Sharma VK.  
 
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.  
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical revi ew? 
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 t he statistics  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
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  
organisati on 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 manuscrip t, 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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I a gree 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