Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The role of endoscopic dilation and stents in refractory benign esophageal strictures: a 
retrospective analysis.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Dec 2018  
 
Reviewer: Aron Vincze  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1) Line 156 -159 contains repeated information, should be rephrased and needs language 
correction  
 
2) Sentence in line 212 is incomplete  
 
3) Spelling errors in line 228, 258, 279  
 
4) Sentences in line 278 -279, 281 -282 are incomplete, difficult to understand, need language 
correction  
 
5) Line 285 correctly: "with small sample size", delete "a"  
 
6) Line 293 -295: Contrary to the statement, stent cannot be considered effective in RBES, since 
no additional benefit was shown in the study, i.e., stents did not reduce the frequency of  
dilatation  
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 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 sta tistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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 t he 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 organisat ion 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 reimbursemen ts, 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 t his 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 declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy o f 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: The role of endoscopic dilation and stents in refractory benign esophageal strictures: a 
retrospective analysis.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Dec 2018  
 
Reviewer: Aron Vincze  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1) Line 156 -159 contains repeated information, should be rephrased and needs language 
correction  
 
2) Sentence in line 212 is incomplete  
 
3) Spelling errors in line 228, 258, 279  
 
4) Sentences in line 278 -279, 281 -282 are incomplete, difficult to understand, need language 
correction  
 
5) Line 285 correctly: "with small sample size", delete "a"  
 
6) Line 293 -295: Contrary to the statement, stent cannot be considered effective in RBES, since 
no additional benefit was shown in the study, i.e., stents did not reduce the frequency of  
dilatation  
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 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 sta tistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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 t he 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 organisat ion 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 reimbursemen ts, 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 t his 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 declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy o f 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: The role of endoscopic dilation and stents in refractory benign esophageal strictures: a 
retrospective analysis.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Dec 2018  
 
Reviewer: Aron Vincze  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
1) Line 156 -159 contains repeated information, should be rephrased and needs language 
correction  
 
2) Sentence in line 212 is incomplete  
 
3) Spelling errors in line 228, 258, 279  
 
4) Sentences in line 278 -279, 281 -282 are incomplete, difficult to understand, need language 
correction  
 
5) Line 285 correctly: "with small sample size", delete "a"  
 
6) Line 293 -295: Contrary to the statement, stent cannot be considered effective in RBES, since 
no additional benefit was shown in the study, i.e., stents did not reduce the frequency of  
dilatation  
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 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 sta tistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify 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 t he 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 organisat ion 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 reimbursemen ts, 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 t his 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 declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy o f 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