Reviewer’ s report
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with
stricture
Version: 0Date: 14 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors compare two groups of patients in whom two different treatment strategies have beenused. The topic is interesting, but it has been previously addressed by other groups. The idea ofcomparing two groups of patients is always attractive, but both groups should be consistent andhomogeneous so that accurate conclusions can be made. I think that this is not the case in thisstudy.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The data provided by the authors don´t seem to guarantee that the two groups of patients compared
in the study are homogeneous and suitable for this purpose. For example, the median course of thedisease before referral to hospital (Table 1) is 6 months in group A and 9 months in group B, soadvanced disease in the latter group can be inferred. Moreover, the inclusion criteria in group B arebased on subjective aspects like willingness and economic endurance(?) which clearly limit andbypass the possibility of comparing results with group A.The characteristics or features of the stents used are not described, and I think this is an importantpoint.The summary lacks some relevant issues such as the distribution of patients (number) in both
groups in the Results paragraph.
The statistical analysis should be reviewed by an expert.Methods and Results should be entirely re-written.English editing is needed because there are some mistakes.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with
stricture
Version: 0Date: 14 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors compare two groups of patients in whom two different treatment strategies have beenused. The topic is interesting, but it has been previously addressed by other groups. The idea ofcomparing two groups of patients is always attractive, but both groups should be consistent andhomogeneous so that accurate conclusions can be made. I think that this is not the case in thisstudy.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The data provided by the authors don´t seem to guarantee that the two groups of patients compared
in the study are homogeneous and suitable for this purpose. For example, the median course of thedisease before referral to hospital (Table 1) is 6 months in group A and 9 months in group B, soadvanced disease in the latter group can be inferred. Moreover, the inclusion criteria in group B arebased on subjective aspects like willingness and economic endurance(?) which clearly limit andbypass the possibility of comparing results with group A.The characteristics or features of the stents used are not described, and I think this is an importantpoint.The summary lacks some relevant issues such as the distribution of patients (number) in both
groups in the Results paragraph.
The statistical analysis should be reviewed by an expert.Methods and Results should be entirely re-written.English editing is needed because there are some mistakes.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto 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: Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with
stricture
Version: 0Date: 14 Apr 2020
Reviewer: Research Square Reviewer 1
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically sound?
If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS:
The authors compare two groups of patients in whom two different treatment strategies have beenused. The topic is interesting, but it has been previously addressed by other groups. The idea ofcomparing two groups of patients is always attractive, but both groups should be consistent andhomogeneous so that accurate conclusions can be made. I think that this is not the case in thisstudy.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The data provided by the authors don´t seem to guarantee that the two groups of patients compared
in the study are homogeneous and suitable for this purpose. For example, the median course of thedisease before referral to hospital (Table 1) is 6 months in group A and 9 months in group B, soadvanced disease in the latter group can be inferred. Moreover, the inclusion criteria in group B arebased on subjective aspects like willingness and economic endurance(?) which clearly limit andbypass the possibility of comparing results with group A.The characteristics or features of the stents used are not described, and I think this is an importantpoint.The summary lacks some relevant issues such as the distribution of patients (number) in both
groups in the Results paragraph.
The statistical analysis should be reviewed by an expert.Methods and Results should be entirely re-written.English editing is needed because there are some mistakes.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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 furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being publishedDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant