Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01446-1 (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: Gastric submucosal abscess caused by Edwardsiella tarda infection: a case report
Version: 2Date: 12 Aug 2020
Reviewer's report:The authors addressed to the comments by the reviewers. But the response to major comments 1
and 3 was inadequate.
In revised manuscript, I think the author could not show layer origin in EUS, so it is impossible todiagnose whether this case is gastric submucosal abscess or not. To clarify the layer origin, it isnecessary to show relation between the surrounding layer and the marginal layer of the gastricsubmucosal abscess in EUS.It was not mentioned the reason "a larger size percutaneous tube was not used".
Publons Reviewer Recognition. Springer Nature can send verification of this review directly to
Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would like to take advantage of this service,please click on the “Yes” option below. Your name, email address, title of the reviewed
manuscript, name of the journal, and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will
then be transmitted to Publons upon publication of the manuscript. If you have already registeredat Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review and update your profile as per yoursettings and their policy. If you are not registered with Publons, you will receive an email fromthem asking you to register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your newprofile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata for the benefit ofPublons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensitivity of such information. Forexample, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updating your profile published on its
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers.
Please find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms
NoDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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.
Reviewer Publication Consent. 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) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use of appropriate
controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?YesIs the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?YesIs the presentation of the work clear?NoAre the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free from apparent
manipulation?
Yes