Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during 
endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Jiing -Chyuan  Luo 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The authors aimed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal di ssection 
(ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room. They found that a decreased desaturation 
rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room 
with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room.  
 
1. 1.The major difference between operation room and operation room is the use of propofol 
in operation room. So the key point of difference should be mentioned at least in the 
Method of Abstract.  
 
2. 2.Is there any difference in ESD experience among these severe endoscopists ? In the 
method, you mentioned "seven endoscopists performed the ESD procedures in either the 
endoscopy room or operation room based on their judgment. You should show that there 
was no difference in percentage of endoscopy room or operation room among these 
endoscopists.  
 
3. 3.There are several limitations in you study which should be mentioned in your 
Discussion. Like a retrospective study, not a prospective randomized study; single c enter 
study , not multiple center study, etc.  
 
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 statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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, 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 a n 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.  
 
nil 
 
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my repo rt 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 nam ed 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  
 
Do you want to get recognition for reviewing this manuscript? Add a record of this review to 
Publons to track and showcase your reviewing expertise across the world ’s journals. Signing up 
is quick, easy and free!  
 
Yes 
 
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during 
endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Jiing -Chyuan  Luo 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The authors aimed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal di ssection 
(ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room. They found that a decreased desaturation 
rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room 
with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room.  
 
1. 1.The major difference between operation room and operation room is the use of propofol 
in operation room. So the key point of difference should be mentioned at least in the 
Method of Abstract.  
 
2. 2.Is there any difference in ESD experience among these severe endoscopists ? In the 
method, you mentioned "seven endoscopists performed the ESD procedures in either the 
endoscopy room or operation room based on their judgment. You should show that there 
was no difference in percentage of endoscopy room or operation room among these 
endoscopists.  
 
3. 3.There are several limitations in you study which should be mentioned in your 
Discussion. Like a retrospective study, not a prospective randomized study; single c enter 
study , not multiple center study, etc.  
 
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 statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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, 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 a n 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.  
 
nil 
 
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my repo rt 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 nam ed 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  
 
Do you want to get recognition for reviewing this manuscript? Add a record of this review to 
Publons to track and showcase your reviewing expertise across the world ’s journals. Signing up 
is quick, easy and free!  
 
Yes 
 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Comparison of sedation between the endoscopy room and operation room during 
endoscopic submucosal dissection for neoplasms in the upper gastrointestinal tract  
 
Version: 0 Date: 19 Sep 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Jiing -Chyuan  Luo 
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
The authors aimed to compare the safety of sedation during endoscopic submucosal di ssection 
(ESD) in the endoscopy room versus operation room. They found that a decreased desaturation 
rate and shorter recovery time after ESD were the advantages of sedation in the operation room 
with propofol compared with sedation in the endoscopy room.  
 
1. 1.The major difference between operation room and operation room is the use of propofol 
in operation room. So the key point of difference should be mentioned at least in the 
Method of Abstract.  
 
2. 2.Is there any difference in ESD experience among these severe endoscopists ? In the 
method, you mentioned "seven endoscopists performed the ESD procedures in either the 
endoscopy room or operation room based on their judgment. You should show that there 
was no difference in percentage of endoscopy room or operation room among these 
endoscopists.  
 
3. 3.There are several limitations in you study which should be mentioned in your 
Discussion. Like a retrospective study, not a prospective randomized study; single c enter 
study , not multiple center study, etc.  
 
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 statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
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, 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 a n 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.  
 
nil 
 
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 report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my repo rt 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 nam ed 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  
 
Do you want to get recognition for reviewing this manuscript? Add a record of this review to 
Publons to track and showcase your reviewing expertise across the world ’s journals. Signing up 
is quick, easy and free!  
 
Yes 
 
assistant