Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2Date:16 January 2011
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The quality of written English is still unsuitable for publication. Not only
grammar, but also expression and context of the manuscript have to be
re-reviewed extensively. Re-review by another English native speaker familiar
with clinical medicine is necessary.
2. “There was a significant difference in the number of required EBD sessions
between the two treatment groups (p<0.05, Student’s t test). “ (The last
paragraph in Results section) : This sentence should be deleted, because this
report is a case report.
3. Similarly, “It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss underlying
mechanisms
whereby systemic prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce
EBD
sessions.” (The 3rd paragraph in Discussion) and “In conclusion, complete
circular esophageal ESD was safely and successfully achieved in our small
series with the superficially extended SCC.” (The last paragraph in Discussion
section) should be changed to: “Underlying mechanisms whereby systemic
prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce EBD sessions
remains unclear.” and ”Thus, complete circular esophageal ESD was safely and
successfully achieved in our small series with superficially extended SCC.”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2Date:16 January 2011
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The quality of written English is still unsuitable for publication. Not only
grammar, but also expression and context of the manuscript have to be
re-reviewed extensively. Re-review by another English native speaker familiar
with clinical medicine is necessary.
2. “There was a significant difference in the number of required EBD sessions
between the two treatment groups (p<0.05, Student’s t test). “ (The last
paragraph in Results section) : This sentence should be deleted, because this
report is a case report.
3. Similarly, “It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss underlying
mechanisms
whereby systemic prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce
EBD
sessions.” (The 3rd paragraph in Discussion) and “In conclusion, complete
circular esophageal ESD was safely and successfully achieved in our small
series with the superficially extended SCC.” (The last paragraph in Discussion
section) should be changed to: “Underlying mechanisms whereby systemic
prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce EBD sessions
remains unclear.” and ”Thus, complete circular esophageal ESD was safely and
successfully achieved in our small series with superficially extended SCC.”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic
submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Version: 2Date:16 January 2011
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. The quality of written English is still unsuitable for publication. Not only
grammar, but also expression and context of the manuscript have to be
re-reviewed extensively. Re-review by another English native speaker familiar
with clinical medicine is necessary.
2. “There was a significant difference in the number of required EBD sessions
between the two treatment groups (p<0.05, Student’s t test). “ (The last
paragraph in Results section) : This sentence should be deleted, because this
report is a case report.
3. Similarly, “It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss underlying
mechanisms
whereby systemic prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce
EBD
sessions.” (The 3rd paragraph in Discussion) and “In conclusion, complete
circular esophageal ESD was safely and successfully achieved in our small
series with the superficially extended SCC.” (The last paragraph in Discussion
section) should be changed to: “Underlying mechanisms whereby systemic
prednisolone could control the post-ESD stricture and reduce EBD sessions
remains unclear.” and ”Thus, complete circular esophageal ESD was safely and
successfully achieved in our small series with superficially extended SCC.”
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant