Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01293-0 (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Analysis of factors associated with local recurrence after endoscopic resection of gastric 
epithelial dysplasia  
 
Version: 2 Date: 13 Apr 2020  
 
Reviewer: Field Willingham  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materials or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
Thank you for the revisio ns and the re -analysis.  As was mentioned in the reanalysis, it appears 
that EMR was similar to ESD in terms of outcomes for lesions &lt;1cm and &lt;2cm.  Also, it 
appears that even for the lesions resected with EMR, that they were able to achieve complete  
eradication on a subsequent endoscopy by repeating the EMR.   
 
Both of these points need to be clearly made in the abstract. Show the data in the abstract results 
section for lesions &lt;=1cm and &lt;=2cm.   Also report in the results section that the pat ients 
receiving EMR achieved complete eradication with repeat resection at subsequent endoscopy at 
rates similar to ESD.   
 
Change the abstract conclusions to indicate that EMR was equivalent to ESD for lesions 
&lt;=2cm if this is the case.  Also that EMR achieves complete eradication allowing for multiple 
procedures.  ESD achieves higher en bloc resections for larger lesions in one procedure.   
 
Impressive work thank you for your attentions to these revisions.   
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, p lease 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.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a de claration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 financia l 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 be low. 
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including a ny 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 com ments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal