Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection  for small size 
nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ：A randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date:  19 Jul 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Additional file 2: Figur e S1. Forest plot of risk difference for primary outcome.  
Figure S1 is a key figure of this manuscript. Therefore, the author should attach this figure to the 
main manuscript not to supplementary file.  
At this rate, the readers cannot understand this figu re.  
The author should improve this figure.  
1.The author should add the caption of the figure below the horizontal axis (for example; favors 
UEMR, favors CEMR)   
2.The number of horizontal axis ( -0.1, 0.1, 0.2) is not correct.  
The author should revise the se numbers as correct.  
3.The risk difference of complete resection in per -protocol analysis and En -block resection rate 
in ITT analysis are not correct. I think these numbers has been replaced.  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publ ons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recogn ize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit  of 
Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your reco rd as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors t o identify candidate reviewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the author s. 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fee s, 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 financiall y 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 organizati on 
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 a bove, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
Non 
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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 ) if this 
manuscript  is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor,  which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decis ion whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will no t be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection  for small size 
nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ：A randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date:  19 Jul 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Additional file 2: Figur e S1. Forest plot of risk difference for primary outcome.  
Figure S1 is a key figure of this manuscript. Therefore, the author should attach this figure to the 
main manuscript not to supplementary file.  
At this rate, the readers cannot understand this figu re.  
The author should improve this figure.  
1.The author should add the caption of the figure below the horizontal axis (for example; favors 
UEMR, favors CEMR)   
2.The number of horizontal axis ( -0.1, 0.1, 0.2) is not correct.  
The author should revise the se numbers as correct.  
3.The risk difference of complete resection in per -protocol analysis and En -block resection rate 
in ITT analysis are not correct. I think these numbers has been replaced.  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publ ons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recogn ize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit  of 
Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your reco rd as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors t o identify candidate reviewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the author s. 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fee s, 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 financiall y 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 organizati on 
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 a bove, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
Non 
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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 ) if this 
manuscript  is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor,  which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decis ion whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will no t be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection  for small size 
nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ：A randomized controlled trial  
 
Version: 1 Date:  19 Jul 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Additional file 2: Figur e S1. Forest plot of risk difference for primary outcome.  
Figure S1 is a key figure of this manuscript. Therefore, the author should attach this figure to the 
main manuscript not to supplementary file.  
At this rate, the readers cannot understand this figu re.  
The author should improve this figure.  
1.The author should add the caption of the figure below the horizontal axis (for example; favors 
UEMR, favors CEMR)   
2.The number of horizontal axis ( -0.1, 0.1, 0.2) is not correct.  
The author should revise the se numbers as correct.  
3.The risk difference of complete resection in per -protocol analysis and En -block resection rate 
in ITT analysis are not correct. I think these numbers has been replaced.  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion of this review directly to 
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service, 
please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email  address, title of the reviewed 
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data ”) will 
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publ ons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per your 
settings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons,  you will receive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recogn ize your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit  of 
Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your reco rd as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors t o identify candidate reviewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the author s. 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I recommend additional statistical review  
 
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 declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1.  Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fee s, 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 financiall y 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 organizati on 
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 a bove, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
Non 
 
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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 ) if this 
manuscript  is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the 
published report have been included as confidential comments to the editor,  which will not be 
published.  If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and  confirm 
this decis ion whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we will no t be able to 
publish your name.  
 
I agree to the terms of the CC -BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.  
(default)  
assistant