Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Analysis of factors associated with local recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric 
epithelial dysplasia  
 
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Tsutomu Nishida  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you  for allowing me to review the manuscript: " Analysis of factors associated with local 
recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric epithelial dysplasia."  
 
In this study, the authors analyzed the complete resection rate and the local recurrence rate 
among the patients with gastric LGD or HGD to compare ESD with EMR.  It is well established 
that ESD is superior to EMR regarding treating gastric epithelial neoplasia, including 
adenocarcinoma and adenoma lesions.  
 
Therefore, I feel it is difficult to show t hese results in a retrospective study. The choice of 
treatment, ESD, or EMR depends on time background. Besides, we can easily predict those 
results. If the authors clarify this hypothesis, an RCT is required.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, p lease 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what  aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical revie w 
 
 
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 de claration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, 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 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 financia l 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 be low. 
 
I have nothing to declare.  
 
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 a ny 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/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any com ments 
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: Analysis of factors associated with local recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric 
epithelial dysplasia  
 
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Tsutomu Nishida  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you  for allowing me to review the manuscript: " Analysis of factors associated with local 
recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric epithelial dysplasia."  
 
In this study, the authors analyzed the complete resection rate and the local recurrence rate 
among the patients with gastric LGD or HGD to compare ESD with EMR.  It is well established 
that ESD is superior to EMR regarding treating gastric epithelial neoplasia, including 
adenocarcinoma and adenoma lesions.  
 
Therefore, I feel it is difficult to show t hese results in a retrospective study. The choice of 
treatment, ESD, or EMR depends on time background. Besides, we can easily predict those 
results. If the authors clarify this hypothesis, an RCT is required.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, p lease 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what  aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical revie w 
 
 
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 de claration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, 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 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 financia l 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 be low. 
 
I have nothing to declare.  
 
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 a ny 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/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any com ments 
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: Analysis of factors associated with local recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric 
epithelial dysplasia  
 
Version: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2019  
 
Reviewer: Tsutomu Nishida  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Thank you  for allowing me to review the manuscript: " Analysis of factors associated with local 
recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric epithelial dysplasia."  
 
In this study, the authors analyzed the complete resection rate and the local recurrence rate 
among the patients with gastric LGD or HGD to compare ESD with EMR.  It is well established 
that ESD is superior to EMR regarding treating gastric epithelial neoplasia, including 
adenocarcinoma and adenoma lesions.  
 
Therefore, I feel it is difficult to show t hese results in a retrospective study. The choice of 
treatment, ESD, or EMR depends on time background. Besides, we can easily predict those 
results. If the authors clarify this hypothesis, an RCT is required.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, p lease 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 manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what  aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical revie w 
 
 
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 de claration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, 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 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 financia l 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 be low. 
 
I have nothing to declare.  
 
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 a ny 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/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any com ments 
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