Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Safety of endoscopic procedures with monopolar versus bi polar instruments in an ex vivo 
porcine model  
 
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hao Tseng  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Editor:  
Doctor Shinmura reported a simple but elegant animal study about the difference between 
monopolar and bipolar polypectomy/EMR with histological exam. The data showed bipolar 
devices carry less tissue damage.  
Below are my opinions:  
 
1. The result of hemostasis (Line147 -150,Page6): For hemostasis using by bipolar forceps, 
is the denaturation depth different among different timepoints(5.10.15s)?  
2. Table 1: When compare bipolar EMR with bipolar polypectomy, it's seems a little bit 
surprising to see bipolar EMR have more tissue damage than polypectomy in terms of distance 
of intact submucosa and area of MP -layer damage. What's your opinion?  
3. Did the manuscript be revised  by any native English speakers? It seems to need some 
improvement(Ok, I have to confess that my English is not good, either).  
 
In conclusion, it's a interesting study worth publishing after clarifying some issues.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statist ical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 
financi ally 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 organiz ation 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 th e 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 inte rests 
 
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 l icense ( 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 in cluded 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: Safety of endoscopic procedures with monopolar versus bi polar instruments in an ex vivo 
porcine model  
 
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hao Tseng  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Editor:  
Doctor Shinmura reported a simple but elegant animal study about the difference between 
monopolar and bipolar polypectomy/EMR with histological exam. The data showed bipolar 
devices carry less tissue damage.  
Below are my opinions:  
 
1. The result of hemostasis (Line147 -150,Page6): For hemostasis using by bipolar forceps, 
is the denaturation depth different among different timepoints(5.10.15s)?  
2. Table 1: When compare bipolar EMR with bipolar polypectomy, it's seems a little bit 
surprising to see bipolar EMR have more tissue damage than polypectomy in terms of distance 
of intact submucosa and area of MP -layer damage. What's your opinion?  
3. Did the manuscript be revised  by any native English speakers? It seems to need some 
improvement(Ok, I have to confess that my English is not good, either).  
 
In conclusion, it's a interesting study worth publishing after clarifying some issues.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statist ical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 
financi ally 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 organiz ation 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 th e 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 inte rests 
 
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 l icense ( 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 in cluded 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: Safety of endoscopic procedures with monopolar versus bi polar instruments in an ex vivo 
porcine model  
 
Version: 1 Date: 01 Jan 2019  
 
Reviewer: Cheng -Hao Tseng  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Dear Editor:  
Doctor Shinmura reported a simple but elegant animal study about the difference between 
monopolar and bipolar polypectomy/EMR with histological exam. The data showed bipolar 
devices carry less tissue damage.  
Below are my opinions:  
 
1. The result of hemostasis (Line147 -150,Page6): For hemostasis using by bipolar forceps, 
is the denaturation depth different among different timepoints(5.10.15s)?  
2. Table 1: When compare bipolar EMR with bipolar polypectomy, it's seems a little bit 
surprising to see bipolar EMR have more tissue damage than polypectomy in terms of distance 
of intact submucosa and area of MP -layer damage. What's your opinion?  
3. Did the manuscript be revised  by any native English speakers? It seems to need some 
improvement(Ok, I have to confess that my English is not good, either).  
 
In conclusion, it's a interesting study worth publishing after clarifying some issues.  
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statist ical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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 
financi ally 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 organiz ation 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 th e 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 inte rests 
 
 
 
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or 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 l icense ( 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 in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant