Reviewer’s report
Title:  Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
biopsy to diagnose small gastric subepithelial lesions:A propencity score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 08 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Chan Hyuk Park
Reviewer's report:
This is a study on the comparative efficacy between mucosal-incision assisted biopsy (MIAB) vs. EUS-
guided FNAB. The study findings are interesting and sound reasonable. However, there are several
concerns that should be addressed.
<Major comments>
(1) Please clarify the variables used in the calculation of propensity scores. Was only lesion size used
for the calculation? Variables that impacted on clinical decision between MIAB vs. FNAB should be
considered in the calculation of the propensity scores, such as lesion location and layer of tumor origin
if possible. 
(2) Pre-procedure (MIAB or FNAB) diagnosis should be demonstrated, because only selective patients
might be undergone MIAB or FNAB. I guess that most lesions might be diagnosed with potentially
malignant lesions including GIST preoperatively.
(3) Providing a summary of cases in which the postoperative diagnosis had changed between MIAB
and FNAB groups will help to understand the usefulness of the MIAB in the clinical decision for the
treatment.
<Minor comments>
(1) The introduction section in the abstract and the main body may be simplified.
(2) Page 9-10: "The study population included 177 consecutive patients (men, n=87; women, n=90).",
"As a result, 71 patients underwent MIAB, and 106 patients underwent FNAB. In patients undergoing
FNAB, 69 patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), and 37
patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB).", and "A 19-G needle was
used in 10 patients, 22-G needle in 74 patients, and 25-G needle in 22 patients."
These sentences in the Methods section should be moved to the Results section.
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.
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 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 am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
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 financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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 have no competing interests to declare.
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 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 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:  Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
biopsy to diagnose small gastric subepithelial lesions:A propencity score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 08 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Chan Hyuk Park
Reviewer's report:
This is a study on the comparative efficacy between mucosal-incision assisted biopsy (MIAB) vs. EUS-
guided FNAB. The study findings are interesting and sound reasonable. However, there are several
concerns that should be addressed.
<Major comments>
(1) Please clarify the variables used in the calculation of propensity scores. Was only lesion size used
for the calculation? Variables that impacted on clinical decision between MIAB vs. FNAB should be
considered in the calculation of the propensity scores, such as lesion location and layer of tumor origin
if possible. 
(2) Pre-procedure (MIAB or FNAB) diagnosis should be demonstrated, because only selective patients
might be undergone MIAB or FNAB. I guess that most lesions might be diagnosed with potentially
malignant lesions including GIST preoperatively.
(3) Providing a summary of cases in which the postoperative diagnosis had changed between MIAB
and FNAB groups will help to understand the usefulness of the MIAB in the clinical decision for the
treatment.
<Minor comments>
(1) The introduction section in the abstract and the main body may be simplified.
(2) Page 9-10: "The study population included 177 consecutive patients (men, n=87; women, n=90).",
"As a result, 71 patients underwent MIAB, and 106 patients underwent FNAB. In patients undergoing
FNAB, 69 patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), and 37
patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB).", and "A 19-G needle was
used in 10 patients, 22-G needle in 74 patients, and 25-G needle in 22 patients."
These sentences in the Methods section should be moved to the Results section.
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.
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 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 am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
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 financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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 have no competing interests to declare.
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 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 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:  Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration
biopsy to diagnose small gastric subepithelial lesions:A propencity score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 08 Sep 2019
Reviewer: Chan Hyuk Park
Reviewer's report:
This is a study on the comparative efficacy between mucosal-incision assisted biopsy (MIAB) vs. EUS-
guided FNAB. The study findings are interesting and sound reasonable. However, there are several
concerns that should be addressed.
<Major comments>
(1) Please clarify the variables used in the calculation of propensity scores. Was only lesion size used
for the calculation? Variables that impacted on clinical decision between MIAB vs. FNAB should be
considered in the calculation of the propensity scores, such as lesion location and layer of tumor origin
if possible. 
(2) Pre-procedure (MIAB or FNAB) diagnosis should be demonstrated, because only selective patients
might be undergone MIAB or FNAB. I guess that most lesions might be diagnosed with potentially
malignant lesions including GIST preoperatively.
(3) Providing a summary of cases in which the postoperative diagnosis had changed between MIAB
and FNAB groups will help to understand the usefulness of the MIAB in the clinical decision for the
treatment.
<Minor comments>
(1) The introduction section in the abstract and the main body may be simplified.
(2) Page 9-10: "The study population included 177 consecutive patients (men, n=87; women, n=90).",
"As a result, 71 patients underwent MIAB, and 106 patients underwent FNAB. In patients undergoing
FNAB, 69 patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), and 37
patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB).", and "A 19-G needle was
used in 10 patients, 22-G needle in 74 patients, and 25-G needle in 22 patients."
These sentences in the Methods section should be moved to the Results section.
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.
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 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 am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
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 financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that 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 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 have no competing interests to declare.
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 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 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