Title: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and
conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical
difficulty: A retrospective case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Hideharu Ogiyama
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has been well revised by the author.
I think it is worth accepting.
Only one point needs to be corrected.
p.16, lines 2 - 3
“although DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD greatly (100.5 vs. 55.5 and p = 0.33, 172 vs. 146
and p =1.0, respectively)”
It should be corrected as follows.
“although DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD greatly (55.5 vs. 100.5 and p = 0.33, 146 vs. 172
and p =1.0, respectively”
Title: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and
conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical
difficulty: A retrospective case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Hideharu Ogiyama
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has been well revised by the author.
I think it is worth accepting.
Only one point needs to be corrected.
p.16, lines 2 - 3
“although DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD greatly (100.5 vs. 55.5 and p = 0.33, 172 vs. 146
and p =1.0, respectively)”
It should be corrected as follows.
“although DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD greatly (55.5 vs. 100.5 and p = 0.33, 146 vs. 172
and p =1.0, respectively”
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and
conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical
difficulty: A retrospective case-control study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Sep 2022
Reviewer:  Hideharu Ogiyama
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript has been well revised by the author.
I think it is worth accepting.
Only one point needs to be corrected.
p.16, lines 2 - 3
“although DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD greatly (100.5 vs. 55.5 and p = 0.33, 172 vs. 146
and p =1.0, respectively)”
It should be corrected as follows.
“although DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD greatly (55.5 vs. 100.5 and p = 0.33, 146 vs. 172
and p =1.0, respectively”
assistant