Reviewer's report
Title:Intra-esophageal whitish mass - a challenging diagnosis
Version:2Date:27 April 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Pallabazzer
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision
In the abstract and in the paper you say: we present a case of an
auto-amputated, calcified esophageal pedunculated tumor...... this calcified mass
is an uncommon evolution of an esophageal pedunculated polyp. This is a
pathogenetic interesting hypothesis and not a fact, probably it is an uncommon
evolution of an esophageal fibrovascular polyp but there are some doubts: the
majority originate from the upper third of the esophagus and then where is the
pedicle?
Discretionary revision
Describe better the endoscopy after the removal of the esophageal mass: after
one month was the esophagus enlarged yet? was the ulcer healed? Did the
patient perform another gastrointestinal series? X-ray shows tertiary contraction:
did the patient perform high resolution manometry?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Intra-esophageal whitish mass - a challenging diagnosis
Version:2Date:27 April 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Pallabazzer
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision
In the abstract and in the paper you say: we present a case of an
auto-amputated, calcified esophageal pedunculated tumor...... this calcified mass
is an uncommon evolution of an esophageal pedunculated polyp. This is a
pathogenetic interesting hypothesis and not a fact, probably it is an uncommon
evolution of an esophageal fibrovascular polyp but there are some doubts: the
majority originate from the upper third of the esophagus and then where is the
pedicle?
Discretionary revision
Describe better the endoscopy after the removal of the esophageal mass: after
one month was the esophagus enlarged yet? was the ulcer healed? Did the
patient perform another gastrointestinal series? X-ray shows tertiary contraction:
did the patient perform high resolution manometry?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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:Intra-esophageal whitish mass - a challenging diagnosis
Version:2Date:27 April 2015
Reviewer: Giovanni Pallabazzer
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revision
In the abstract and in the paper you say: we present a case of an
auto-amputated, calcified esophageal pedunculated tumor...... this calcified mass
is an uncommon evolution of an esophageal pedunculated polyp. This is a
pathogenetic interesting hypothesis and not a fact, probably it is an uncommon
evolution of an esophageal fibrovascular polyp but there are some doubts: the
majority originate from the upper third of the esophagus and then where is the
pedicle?
Discretionary revision
Describe better the endoscopy after the removal of the esophageal mass: after
one month was the esophagus enlarged yet? was the ulcer healed? Did the
patient perform another gastrointestinal series? X-ray shows tertiary contraction:
did the patient perform high resolution manometry?
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
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