Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 1Date:26 January 2013
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study.
Minor Essential Revisions
*Fig1B: Please indicate the area of the granulation tissue by ## arrow.
*Fig2A: In general, it is rather difficult to evaluate mild to moderate stenosis by
endoscopy. Fig2A cannot rule out stenosis. Radiological examination would be
much better to evaluate the stenosis. Therefore, adding data of esophagography
is strongly recommended, which will greatly enhance the positive message of this
article. Indeed, "Stricture fomation was unremarkable" seems to be an
exaggeration. The authors have to include discussion regarding this point.
*Fig5: Labels C and D are wrong.
*Table 1 should be changed into a Figure.
*The 3rd paragraph in the results section: The auhtors state "dilation ....was
gently performed", but "gently" is not enough. They have to state the strength
qunatitatively (by atm etc.).
*The 1st paragraph in "Quantitative pathological findings" in Results section:
Data are presented as (n=5) etc. Does "n=5" mean that 5
pigs were evaluated, or 5 sections in a single pig were evaluated? Please make it
clear.
*The last paragraph in Results section: The authors have to present the
thickness of the muscle in the steroid-treated pig.
*the 3rd paragraph in Discussion: The authors state "..human esophagus
consists of the smooth muscle .....", but the human esophagus consists of both
striated and smooth muscle.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
The first author is going to work in the reviewer's institution 3 months later.
Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 1Date:26 January 2013
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study.
Minor Essential Revisions
*Fig1B: Please indicate the area of the granulation tissue by ## arrow.
*Fig2A: In general, it is rather difficult to evaluate mild to moderate stenosis by
endoscopy. Fig2A cannot rule out stenosis. Radiological examination would be
much better to evaluate the stenosis. Therefore, adding data of esophagography
is strongly recommended, which will greatly enhance the positive message of this
article. Indeed, "Stricture fomation was unremarkable" seems to be an
exaggeration. The authors have to include discussion regarding this point.
*Fig5: Labels C and D are wrong.
*Table 1 should be changed into a Figure.
*The 3rd paragraph in the results section: The auhtors state "dilation ....was
gently performed", but "gently" is not enough. They have to state the strength
qunatitatively (by atm etc.).
*The 1st paragraph in "Quantitative pathological findings" in Results section:
Data are presented as (n=5) etc. Does "n=5" mean that 5
pigs were evaluated, or 5 sections in a single pig were evaluated? Please make it
clear.
*The last paragraph in Results section: The authors have to present the
thickness of the muscle in the steroid-treated pig.
*the 3rd paragraph in Discussion: The authors state "..human esophagus
consists of the smooth muscle .....", but the human esophagus consists of both
striated and smooth muscle.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
The first author is going to work in the reviewer's institution 3 months later.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Different healing process of esophageal large mucosal defects by
endoscopic mucosal dissection between with and without steroid injection in an
animal model
Version: 1Date:26 January 2013
Reviewer: Nobuyuki Matsuhashi
Reviewer's report:
An interesting study.
Minor Essential Revisions
*Fig1B: Please indicate the area of the granulation tissue by ## arrow.
*Fig2A: In general, it is rather difficult to evaluate mild to moderate stenosis by
endoscopy. Fig2A cannot rule out stenosis. Radiological examination would be
much better to evaluate the stenosis. Therefore, adding data of esophagography
is strongly recommended, which will greatly enhance the positive message of this
article. Indeed, "Stricture fomation was unremarkable" seems to be an
exaggeration. The authors have to include discussion regarding this point.
*Fig5: Labels C and D are wrong.
*Table 1 should be changed into a Figure.
*The 3rd paragraph in the results section: The auhtors state "dilation ....was
gently performed", but "gently" is not enough. They have to state the strength
qunatitatively (by atm etc.).
*The 1st paragraph in "Quantitative pathological findings" in Results section:
Data are presented as (n=5) etc. Does "n=5" mean that 5
pigs were evaluated, or 5 sections in a single pig were evaluated? Please make it
clear.
*The last paragraph in Results section: The authors have to present the
thickness of the muscle in the steroid-treated pig.
*the 3rd paragraph in Discussion: The authors state "..human esophagus
consists of the smooth muscle .....", but the human esophagus consists of both
striated and smooth muscle.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
The first author is going to work in the reviewer's institution 3 months later.
assistant