Reviewer's report
Title:Gastric epithelial dysplasia: characteristics and long-term follow-up results
after endoscopic resection according to morphological categorization
Version:2Date:30 December 2014
Reviewer: Irene Coati
Reviewer's report:
GED is a topic of interest. In this article, the authors analyzed its morfologic
features, the clinicalpathological characteristics of the patients and their
endoscopic follow-up after endoscopic resection.Even of interest, there are some
major concerns that the authors should address.
1. The question posed by the authors is well defined. The aim of this study is
immediately plain.
2. The methods are well defined in their first paragraph. Figure 1 (flow chart of
the patient inclusion in the study) is plain and useful to understand the two steps
of the study: i) the short-term outcomes; ii) the long-term outcomes.
My major concern is about the classificatory system adopted by the authors: the
article’s gastric dysplasia classification does not completely agree with the
present gastric dysplasia criteria proposed by the WHO. The authors should
consider to integrate their findings according the WHO classification. Moreover,
olny one pathologist examined all specimens. It could be more efficient to have at
least two pathologists to analise the samples in order to be more accurate and
objective according to histological categorization. This limitation is explained in
“Discussion” but it is not sufficient. Minor point: the text confuses the numbers of
the figures or it misses to list all figures concerning each lesion-type (for example
Figure 3 is relative to the adenomatous GED and not to the foveolar one).
3. Yes, the data are sound. The number of the patients enrolled is sufficient to
study the short- and, also, the long-term outcomes. Every table is plain, precise
and there is conformity between the text and the tables’ data.
4. Yes, the figures are genuine, even though their quality is lacking. All
endoscopic figures are not bright. The histological figure of adenomatous GED is
clear enough but it is not immediate. The histological figure of foveolar GED is
clearer than the adenomatous one. And the last figure shows the dysplasia but it
is not possible to discern its two parts.
5. Yes, the manuscript adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
6. The discussion is widely supported by data. The conclusions are not rambling
and it is a correct choice, in order to underling the importance to a correct
diagnosis and a consequent endoscopic follow-up.
7. No, they are not. The authors clearly declare no competing interests.
9. The title is plain. It immediately explains the“pathological target” of the study:
the gastric epithelial dysplasia. In my opinion it is a correct choice. Than the title
explains which kind of statistical study the authors used and which kind of
characteristics of the gastric epithelial dysplasia they observe: the clinical and the
pathological ones according to morphology. In my opinion, it is a correct title.
The abstract is accurate. Every step of the study is clearly explains and the main
data are simply listed. Particularly, the conclusion explains the importance of this
study underlining the need to performe a close follow-up surveillance after GED’s
diagnosis.
10. Yes. The wrinting is fluent and plain.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Gastric epithelial dysplasia: characteristics and long-term follow-up results
after endoscopic resection according to morphological categorization
Version:2Date:30 December 2014
Reviewer: Irene Coati
Reviewer's report:
GED is a topic of interest. In this article, the authors analyzed its morfologic
features, the clinicalpathological characteristics of the patients and their
endoscopic follow-up after endoscopic resection.Even of interest, there are some
major concerns that the authors should address.
1. The question posed by the authors is well defined. The aim of this study is
immediately plain.
2. The methods are well defined in their first paragraph. Figure 1 (flow chart of
the patient inclusion in the study) is plain and useful to understand the two steps
of the study: i) the short-term outcomes; ii) the long-term outcomes.
My major concern is about the classificatory system adopted by the authors: the
article’s gastric dysplasia classification does not completely agree with the
present gastric dysplasia criteria proposed by the WHO. The authors should
consider to integrate their findings according the WHO classification. Moreover,
olny one pathologist examined all specimens. It could be more efficient to have at
least two pathologists to analise the samples in order to be more accurate and
objective according to histological categorization. This limitation is explained in
“Discussion” but it is not sufficient. Minor point: the text confuses the numbers of
the figures or it misses to list all figures concerning each lesion-type (for example
Figure 3 is relative to the adenomatous GED and not to the foveolar one).
3. Yes, the data are sound. The number of the patients enrolled is sufficient to
study the short- and, also, the long-term outcomes. Every table is plain, precise
and there is conformity between the text and the tables’ data.
4. Yes, the figures are genuine, even though their quality is lacking. All
endoscopic figures are not bright. The histological figure of adenomatous GED is
clear enough but it is not immediate. The histological figure of foveolar GED is
clearer than the adenomatous one. And the last figure shows the dysplasia but it
is not possible to discern its two parts.
5. Yes, the manuscript adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
6. The discussion is widely supported by data. The conclusions are not rambling
and it is a correct choice, in order to underling the importance to a correct
diagnosis and a consequent endoscopic follow-up.
7. No, they are not. The authors clearly declare no competing interests.
9. The title is plain. It immediately explains the“pathological target” of the study:
the gastric epithelial dysplasia. In my opinion it is a correct choice. Than the title
explains which kind of statistical study the authors used and which kind of
characteristics of the gastric epithelial dysplasia they observe: the clinical and the
pathological ones according to morphology. In my opinion, it is a correct title.
The abstract is accurate. Every step of the study is clearly explains and the main
data are simply listed. Particularly, the conclusion explains the importance of this
study underlining the need to performe a close follow-up surveillance after GED’s
diagnosis.
10. Yes. The wrinting is fluent and plain.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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:Gastric epithelial dysplasia: characteristics and long-term follow-up results
after endoscopic resection according to morphological categorization
Version:2Date:30 December 2014
Reviewer: Irene Coati
Reviewer's report:
GED is a topic of interest. In this article, the authors analyzed its morfologic
features, the clinicalpathological characteristics of the patients and their
endoscopic follow-up after endoscopic resection.Even of interest, there are some
major concerns that the authors should address.
1. The question posed by the authors is well defined. The aim of this study is
immediately plain.
2. The methods are well defined in their first paragraph. Figure 1 (flow chart of
the patient inclusion in the study) is plain and useful to understand the two steps
of the study: i) the short-term outcomes; ii) the long-term outcomes.
My major concern is about the classificatory system adopted by the authors: the
article’s gastric dysplasia classification does not completely agree with the
present gastric dysplasia criteria proposed by the WHO. The authors should
consider to integrate their findings according the WHO classification. Moreover,
olny one pathologist examined all specimens. It could be more efficient to have at
least two pathologists to analise the samples in order to be more accurate and
objective according to histological categorization. This limitation is explained in
“Discussion” but it is not sufficient. Minor point: the text confuses the numbers of
the figures or it misses to list all figures concerning each lesion-type (for example
Figure 3 is relative to the adenomatous GED and not to the foveolar one).
3. Yes, the data are sound. The number of the patients enrolled is sufficient to
study the short- and, also, the long-term outcomes. Every table is plain, precise
and there is conformity between the text and the tables’ data.
4. Yes, the figures are genuine, even though their quality is lacking. All
endoscopic figures are not bright. The histological figure of adenomatous GED is
clear enough but it is not immediate. The histological figure of foveolar GED is
clearer than the adenomatous one. And the last figure shows the dysplasia but it
is not possible to discern its two parts.
5. Yes, the manuscript adheres to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition.
6. The discussion is widely supported by data. The conclusions are not rambling
and it is a correct choice, in order to underling the importance to a correct
diagnosis and a consequent endoscopic follow-up.
7. No, they are not. The authors clearly declare no competing interests.
9. The title is plain. It immediately explains the“pathological target” of the study:
the gastric epithelial dysplasia. In my opinion it is a correct choice. Than the title
explains which kind of statistical study the authors used and which kind of
characteristics of the gastric epithelial dysplasia they observe: the clinical and the
pathological ones according to morphology. In my opinion, it is a correct title.
The abstract is accurate. Every step of the study is clearly explains and the main
data are simply listed. Particularly, the conclusion explains the importance of this
study underlining the need to performe a close follow-up surveillance after GED’s
diagnosis.
10. Yes. The wrinting is fluent and plain.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
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