Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1099-5 (2019)

Reviewer’s report
Title:  Comparison of different endoscopic resection techniques for submucosal tumors originating
from muscularis propria at the esophagogastric junction
Version: 0 Date: 06 May 2019
Reviewer: Pinghong Zhou
Reviewer's report:
In this manuscript, the authors aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between STER and ESD.
Because STER preserves the integrity of GI tract that further significant reduces the risk of fistula and
secondary infection, it's reasonable that we should choose STER for the treatment of SMTs originating
from MP layer. However, because some locations should be difficult to create the tunnel such as the
greater curve of cardia, directly resection using ESD technique may be the only choice. Moreover,
because of the limited space in the tunnel, it has been widely accepted that the maximum transverse
diameter of the lesion should be less than 3.5cm for STER. In consideration of these reasons, we think
the two groups in this study is not comparable. The results thus can not support its conclusion.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
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 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 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.
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