Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1043-8 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Endoscopic full -thickness resection using an over -the-scope device for treatment of 
recurrent / residual colorectal neoplasia: a single -center case series  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 A pr 2019  
 
Reviewer: Takuma Higurashi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This study analyzed the usefulness of endoscopic full -thickness resection using an over -the-
scope device for treatment of recurrent / residual colorectal neoplasia. They concluded EFTR 
with an over -the-scope device is a us eful method for endoscopic resection of difficult to treat 
recurrent or residual colorectal neoplasia after previous endoscopic therapy. And high R0 
resection rates were observed after a relatively short learning curve. Furthermore, the 
complication rate i n this series seems acceptable given the complexity of the resected lesions.  
This is well written study and novel information, however, this study has some limitations 
following areas.  
  
＜Minor＞ 
1. The authors described EFTR with over the scope device can  achieved high R0 resection 
rate. Indeed EFTR with over the scope device achieved high R0 resection rate, but I think 
full-thickness resection rate is the most important point. Because this method is named 
"full-thickness resection" The author should bette r to show the percentage of resected 
specimen contain the serosa.  
2. There are some previous reports about ETRD. The authors clarify the superiority about 
this report.  
Are the methods appropriate and well descri bed?  
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.  
 
No 
 
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:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interes ts 
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 publ ication 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 current ly 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 det ails below.  
 
I declare tha t 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