Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous 
cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms  
 
Version: 0 Date: 31 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Dimitrios K. Christodoulou  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
"This is an interesting manuscript proposing criteria for the differential diagnosis of SCNs and 
MCNs based on the analysis of their EUS imaging features.  
However, there several issues that should be addressed, i n order for the manuscript to reach its 
full potential:  
1.      There are minor syntax and grammatical errors. Consider having the manuscript edited by  
a native English speaker.  
2.      "RESULTS". Consider changing "P=0.000" with "P< 0.001".  
3.      "RESU LTS". Did the combination of any two features produce the aforementioned Az 
value, or were there any feature combinations that performed worse than others? Please 
comment.  
4.      "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS". In your statistical analysis add the diagnostic perf ormance 
of EUS imaging features for MCN's diagnosis and discuss, accordingly.  
In addition, add the negative predictive value and positive predictive value in your statistical 
analysis.  
Finally, add the 95% Confidence Intervals for Sensitivity Specificity P ositive Predictive Value 
and Negative Predictive for both the diagnosis of SCN's and MCN's.Please apply all the 
necessary associated changes in the manuscript text and tables.  
5.      "DISCUSSION". Please try discussing the results without repeating your f indings in the 
"Discussion" section (after all they are presented in the "Results" section).  
6.      "Combination of imaging features" One should be very cautious recommending that 2 
features can make a diagnosis of SCN, as the two -feature combination prod uces 80% specificity, 
practically failing to rule -in the SCN diagnosis in 20% of patients, outcome that is very 
important, as MCN's have the greatest malignant potential. Please comment.  
 
Recommendation: Major Revision  
 
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 t he 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 statisti cs 
 
Quality of wr itten 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 an 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 o f 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 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: A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous 
cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms  
 
Version: 0 Date: 31 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Dimitrios K. Christodoulou  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
"This is an interesting manuscript proposing criteria for the differential diagnosis of SCNs and 
MCNs based on the analysis of their EUS imaging features.  
However, there several issues that should be addressed, i n order for the manuscript to reach its 
full potential:  
1.      There are minor syntax and grammatical errors. Consider having the manuscript edited by  
a native English speaker.  
2.      "RESULTS". Consider changing "P=0.000" with "P< 0.001".  
3.      "RESU LTS". Did the combination of any two features produce the aforementioned Az 
value, or were there any feature combinations that performed worse than others? Please 
comment.  
4.      "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS". In your statistical analysis add the diagnostic perf ormance 
of EUS imaging features for MCN's diagnosis and discuss, accordingly.  
In addition, add the negative predictive value and positive predictive value in your statistical 
analysis.  
Finally, add the 95% Confidence Intervals for Sensitivity Specificity P ositive Predictive Value 
and Negative Predictive for both the diagnosis of SCN's and MCN's.Please apply all the 
necessary associated changes in the manuscript text and tables.  
5.      "DISCUSSION". Please try discussing the results without repeating your f indings in the 
"Discussion" section (after all they are presented in the "Results" section).  
6.      "Combination of imaging features" One should be very cautious recommending that 2 
features can make a diagnosis of SCN, as the two -feature combination prod uces 80% specificity, 
practically failing to rule -in the SCN diagnosis in 20% of patients, outcome that is very 
important, as MCN's have the greatest malignant potential. Please comment.  
 
Recommendation: Major Revision  
 
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 t he 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 statisti cs 
 
Quality of wr itten 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 an 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 o f 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 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: A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous 
cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms  
 
Version: 0 Date: 31 Mar 2019  
 
Reviewer: Dimitrios K. Christodoulou  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
"This is an interesting manuscript proposing criteria for the differential diagnosis of SCNs and 
MCNs based on the analysis of their EUS imaging features.  
However, there several issues that should be addressed, i n order for the manuscript to reach its 
full potential:  
1.      There are minor syntax and grammatical errors. Consider having the manuscript edited by  
a native English speaker.  
2.      "RESULTS". Consider changing "P=0.000" with "P< 0.001".  
3.      "RESU LTS". Did the combination of any two features produce the aforementioned Az 
value, or were there any feature combinations that performed worse than others? Please 
comment.  
4.      "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS". In your statistical analysis add the diagnostic perf ormance 
of EUS imaging features for MCN's diagnosis and discuss, accordingly.  
In addition, add the negative predictive value and positive predictive value in your statistical 
analysis.  
Finally, add the 95% Confidence Intervals for Sensitivity Specificity P ositive Predictive Value 
and Negative Predictive for both the diagnosis of SCN's and MCN's.Please apply all the 
necessary associated changes in the manuscript text and tables.  
5.      "DISCUSSION". Please try discussing the results without repeating your f indings in the 
"Discussion" section (after all they are presented in the "Results" section).  
6.      "Combination of imaging features" One should be very cautious recommending that 2 
features can make a diagnosis of SCN, as the two -feature combination prod uces 80% specificity, 
practically failing to rule -in the SCN diagnosis in 20% of patients, outcome that is very 
important, as MCN's have the greatest malignant potential. Please comment.  
 
Recommendation: Major Revision  
 
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 t he 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 statisti cs 
 
Quality of wr itten 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 an 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 o f 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
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 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