JerMa88/BMC_Gastroenterology_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02373-z (2022)

Title: Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis and differential diagnosis of polypoid
lesions of gallbladder# 1 cm
Version: 4 Date: 02 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This work treated the interesting topic of the evaluation of gallbladder lesions > 10 mm with
contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
It was well-conducted and it provided further evidence about the differential diagnosis of
gallbladder lesions in order to reduce the rate of unnecessary cholecystectomies.
Some English polishing is needed.
INTRODUCTION
- In the “Introduction” the first time you use words with the abbreviations, you have to write
in the entire form and not with abbreviations (e.g. “ Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder (PLGs)
refer to …”/ “…protrude into gallbladder (GB) lumen…”,…)
- First line: “ It’s a relatively common disease/They are a relatively common disease”. PLGs
are plural.
- Add literature percentage about malignant and benign nature of PLGs > 10 mm
- Add some data about the diagnostic yield of US, CEUS, CT and MRI for the differential
diagnosis of PLGs > 10 mm
- I think that the study aims should be expressed better. They may be summarized as the
evaluation of the diagnostic yield of CEUS for the differential diagnosis of PLGs # 1.0 cm and
the factors affecting it.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Age should be expressed as a median with range or as a mean with a standard deviation
RESULTS
- “Among the malignant cases, one case of adenomyomatosis and six cases of adenoma that had
developed into cancer, 22 cases were GB carcinoma (19 cases of adenocarcinoma, and three
cases of adenosquamous carcinoma).” Some English polishing is needed.
DISCUSSION
- Report the rate of unnecessary cholecystectomies (e.g. cholecystectomy for benign lesions,…).
- Write a consideration about savings related to the reduction of cholecystectomies after CEUS
evaluation of GBLs > 10 mm.
- Report the limits of your study
TABLE 1/TABLE 2/TABLE 3/TABLE 4
- I think that you should divide benign lesions from malignant lesions. You can underline data
about malignant and benign lesions in general and then, you can create, subgroups of malignant
and benign lesions (adenoma, chronic cholecystitis, adenomyomatosis,…).
- Please write the measure unit in the first line of the table.
- The statistically or no significance should be added as a final column in all tables (“p” column),
instead of being described in the table description
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02373-z (2022)

Title: Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis and differential diagnosis of polypoid
lesions of gallbladder# 1 cm
Version: 4 Date: 13 May 2022
Reviewer:  Antonio Corvino
Reviewer's report:
STATUS: ACCETTABLE FOR PUBBLICATION PENDING MINOR REVISIONS
Short summary according reviewers:
Authors reported an original article to investigate the usefulness of Contrast-enhanced
ultrasound (CEUS) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Polypoid lesions of gallbladder
(PLGs) # 1 cm.
General considerations + Study design:
This is an original article. The work is interesting and the paper is well-written. The statistical
analysis is good. I believe that the article can represent a complete overview focusing on the
usefulness of CEUS in the assessment of PLGs. I recommend its publication, pending minor
revisions.
Abstract: the abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript without discrepancies between
the abstract and the remainder of the manuscript.
Keywords: adequate.
Paper
On some aspects the authors should mostly address:
1)I would describe how may appear the normal gallbladder wall at sonography. Low-frequency
transducers may show a single or two layers of gallbladder wall. High-frequency transducers
can show three layers of gallbladder wall: the innermost hyperechoic layer (mucosa), the middle
thin hypoechoic layer (muscular) and the outermost hyperechoic layer (serosa).
2)Please, specify that the normal cut-off value for gallbladder wall is 4 mm, which is a more
specific discriminant value in clinical practice.
3)I suggest you to read the following article:
-Diagnostic Performance and Confidence of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Differential
Diagnosis of Cystic and Cysticlike Liver Lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017
Sep;209(3):W119-W127. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17062. Epub 2017 Jun 22. PMID: 28639831.
In this paper, the authors describes the CEUS features of cystic and cystic-like liver lesions. The
article includes schematic drawings about CEUS enhancement features, which you could take
as an example to describe your case evaluated with CEUS. Furthermore, these data confirm that
the distinctive feature in the appropriate differential diagnosis is hypoenhancement in the portal
and sinusoidal phases, with or with- out arterial enhancement. I recommend that you discuss this
article because it is an international reference about CEUS approach to lesion characterization
on the basis of enhancement features.
4)Have you thought about using the new microvascularization software?
Reference: the references are adequate. Please, add those suggested.
Tables: good.
Figures:
1)Please, include US images of good quality of gallbladder wall in the normal and when there
is thickening. It would be interesting if you show that low-frequency transducers may depict a
single or two layers of gallbladder wall and high-frequency transducers can depict three layers
of gallbladder wall: the innermost hyperechoic layer (mucosa), the middle thin hypoechoic layer
(muscular) and the outermost hyperechoic layer (serosa).
2)You could also make some schematic drawings.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02428-1 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric
cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis
Version: 3 Date: 09 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study is a retrospective observational study comparing the effects of EVO and RTO in
patients with gastric variceal bleeding. Both EVO and RTO have very good therapeutic effects
on gastric variceal bleeding, which is a fatal condition, have few complications, and can be
evaluated as excellent treatments. In this study, it was concluded that RTO is more curative in
terms of eradication of gastric varices, as previously reported. Although the conclusions of this
study are not novel, the results of the analysis are credible using the two groups with a very
uniform number of cases and background. However, there are some problems to be confirmed.
Major comments
1. Although this study design looks like a retrospective observational study, it neatly divides
emergency patients with gastric variceal bleeding into two groups and is suspected to be a
prospective interventional study. Isn’t it a prospective controlled study?
2. In addition, it is necessary to clarify what kind of adaptation was decided to perform EVO or
RTO. We request that you clarify how to make one of the two treatment options (for example,
"EVO was performed at facility A and RTO was performed at facility B", "the treatment was
changed depending on the period", "alternatively changed treatment methods," etc.).
Minor comments
1. Even when the authors find bleeding endoscopically, do they give no treatment to patients
in the RTO group?
(Examples: endoscopic clipping, EVL, compression with SB tube, etc.)
2. Was EVO puncture performed under EUS?
Was the injection of glue (NBCA-Lipiodol) performed under fluoroscopy?
What was the end point of glue injection?
3. RTO includes BRTO (using STS) and PARTO (using gelatin sponge). Both showed good
results equally and were highly evaluated. STS is a sclerosant that causes vascular endothelial
damage, but gelatin sponge is just a physical embolic material without endothelial damage. The
differences between BRTO and PARTO should be considered, including the differences with
and without sclerosant.
4. BRTO occludes major portosystemic shunts and is often used as a treatment for hepatic
encephalopathy. In this study, the onset of hepatic encephalopathy after RTO was seen in 2
cases. Why?
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02428-1 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric
cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Ashish Chauhan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript (except for discussion) on a clinically pertinent research
question. I have a few observations on this manuscript:
1. Please mention the study design in the abstract whether it was a prospective or a retrospective
design. In the methods section, it appears like a retrospective design. Please mention that in
methods too. This is one of the most critical limitations of this study.
2. This study excluded patients with NCPF and EHPVO. It is advisable to include in the title
that it compared two treatments in cirrhosis patients.
3. As the decision of EVO or RTO was based on clinician discretion, it's likely that sicker patients
were not taken for RTO (Was TIPS considered in any of the patients). This is evident from
higher MELD in the EVO group. Please include a relevant statement in the limitations.
4. Significantly more patients in RTO group were on beta-blockers. Beta-blockers are known to
have beneficial effects on bacterial translocation and portal hypertension and have been shown
to have survival benefits. This variable may have impacted results and should be included in
the limitations.
5. Discussion is too bulky and needs to be rewritten. There is no need t repeat findings of the
results (paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the discussion). 1st para is well written summarizing what the
authors found. In 2 nd para authors should include the para where authors compared various
studies and thereafter the para giving explanation/hypothesis for these findings and in the end
strengths and limitations. The authors have repeated the entire results section in the discussion.
6. The only major weak point in this manuscript is discussion, where there is incoherence and
a lack of flow and structure. Please work on it.
7.  Kindly provide a consort diagram of inclusions and exclusions. Please do mention if any
patient underwent TIPS. If possible do mention the most common cause for clinicians to choose
EVO over RTO, or RTO over EVO.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02425-4 (2022)

Title: Current status of and barriers to the treatment of advanced-stage liver cancer in China: A
questionnaire-based study from the perspective of doctors
Version: 1 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
This is a cross-sectional survey based on online-questionnaire submitted to doctors all around
China that focuses on liver cancer treatment. Its main purpose is to  investigate differences in
treatments' choice, availability,  and satisfaction among different economic regions, levels of
hospitals and doctors' experience.
Overall, the study is well conducted and interesting. However, as mentioned by the authors at the
end of their discussion, the major limit of this study is not including surgery amongst the different
treatments option.  In fact, although most patients are generally diagnosed at an advanced stage,
still there is a conspicuous proportion of the population who could be eligible for surgery as well
as loco-regional treatments. In my opinion, investigating the availability of surgery in different
economic regions throughout China would have added quality to the survey's results.
Having considered this, I would specify in both the title and in the introduction that the study
focuses only on advanced liver cancer treatment options.
To conclude, Tables 2, 3 and 4 are extremely wide, resulting difficult for the reader to extract
information. Maybe enlightening relevant results would help the interpretation.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02425-4 (2022)

Title: Current status of and barriers to the treatment of advanced-stage liver cancer in China: A
questionnaire-based study from the perspective of doctors
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. The authors have
addressed the majority of our prior comments. The methods and discussion sections have been
significantly improved. However, additional suggestions are as below:
Overall – there are several areas in the manuscript where verb-tense agreements and grammar
could be improved. Would suggest reviewing this more closely to improve the manuscript text
and readability.
Abstract – lines 35-36, 38: It is not clear what the difference is between “doctors’ professional
ranks” and “hospital levels of the doctors” would be to an international reader. Please clarify
or revise the terms accordingly. I would also suggest using the term “hospital level” throughout
the manuscript for simplification.
Methods – This section has been much improved. Thank you for including information on
economic regions, hospital levels, and professional rank. I wonder if a figure can be included,
particularly for hospital levels (by level and class) so it is easier to digest the information as an
international reader.
Methods – In line 110 – please revise the line that says “while the majority of the West is the most
backward”. The term backward seems out of place in this sentence. In line 150 – please revise.
I think you mean you excluded questionnaires that took more than 10 minutes to complete…
As written, it is difficult to understand.
Line 198: Please remove the “, etc”. The next sentence also appears to be incomplete.
Line 202: Would revise “less” to “fewer”.
Line 209: Please provide statistics to support the preference for sorafenib. I’m not sure if the
question asked if the provider preferred lenvatinib over sorafenib (if so, would recommend
moving the line about sorafeneib earlier in the sentence) or if these were 2 separate questions.
Line 246: Please remove the “, etc”.
Line 311: Would recommend choosing a different word than “pessimistic”. I think the authors
may mean dissatisfaction.
Line 313: Please revise this sentence. I think the authors mean “doctors who reported a high
percentage of patients with advanced-stage liver cancer were more likely to have negative
attitudes towards current treatment options for liver cancer” or something similar.
Line 342: Please revise to “advanced stage liver cancer”. In general, please clarify that advanced
stage refers to liver cancer (and for example, not liver disease) throughout the manuscript.
Line 378: Please remove the term “qualified” before questionnaire.
Line 379: Perhaps using the term “differences” can be used instead of “imbalance”.
Line 459: Please revise this sentence. I don’t think you mean that doctors were less likely to
be satisfied with your research. Perhaps replace the phrase “in our research” at the end of the
sentence.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02422-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophagogastric varices on portal
hemodynamics and liver function
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jan 2022
Reviewer's report:
This report describes for the effects of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy on portal
hemodynamics, liver function.
The author examined in detail.
Minor revision is required.
Conclusion paragraph in the text is different from conclusion paragraph in the abstract.
I prefer the conclusions in the abstract.
Conclusions in the abstract: Patients with low ICG-R15, low P/A ratio, and the absence of
paraesophageal veins were probable predictors of PVTBF improvement post-EIS. In addition,
the improvement of hepatic hemodynamics likely enhanced liver function following EIS.
Conclusions in the text: The protein synthetic ability improved after an improvement of PVTBF
owing to the obliteration of EGV. In addition, patients with low value of ICG-R15, without
Para-V, or with low P/A ratio displayed the potential to predict PVTBF improvement after EIS.
ICG-R15 <30% was a non-invasive and convenient marker to predict for an increase in PVTBF
post-EIS.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02422-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophagogastric varices on portal
hemodynamics and liver function
Version: 2 Date: 01 Feb 2022
Reviewer:  Xiaoquan Huang
Reviewer's report:
This study focus on the topic that which group of cirrhotic patients should receive sclerotherapy,
while it is not recommended in the guideline. However, there is a lot to be clarified.
Is it a prospective study? There is a lot of patients excluded because of the lack of Xe-CT. Please
provided the registered number of the trial.
How to define recurrence? As for cirrhotic patients with EGV, endpoint including death, re-
bleeding should be evaluated.
Although albumin and prothrombin time were observed improved after endoscopic injection
sclerotherapy, however, there is no effect on the overall survival and the recurrence of varices.
This might be contribute to the significant difference between age, sex, ICG15, etc. which lead
to the low reliability of this study
The sample size is quite small.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02422-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophagogastric varices on portal
hemodynamics and liver function
Version: 2 Date: 02 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript evaluated portal hemodynamics and liver function in patients who was treated
with endoscopic injection sclerotherapy. This research has great clinical significance, and can
further guider the selection of clinical treatment options. The use of Xe-CT to research portal
hemodynamics is novel and interesting. However, there are some questions after reading this
article.
1.Authors mentioned this as a prospective study, but this research is more like a retrospective
study based on the content.
2.Authors mentioned “all patients with gastrorenal shunts were performed balloon occluded
retrograde transvenous obliteration before EIS”, but the effect of BRTO on portal blood flow
was not took into account. This should be discussed.
3.Generally speaking, portal blood flow should be increased after EIS. Try to discuss the possible
reasons that portal blood flow in some patients was decreased after EIS.
4.Generally, liver function is described in form of score-system (eg. Child-Pugh, MELD). Try
to list the changes of these scores in the results.
5.More patiens need to be included to validate the results.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02422-7 (2022)

Title: Effects of endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophagogastric varices on portal
hemodynamics and liver function
Version: 3 Date: 22 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
This study is important in improving of using sclerotherapy in relation to health parameters and
therapy.
Author have done Application and technique of EIS, Xe-CT theory and imaging,  study design,
statistical analysis figure performance, endoscopy done during several times week, months
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
This study is important in improving of using sclerotherapy in relation to health parameters
and therapy. Author have done Application and technique of EIS, Xe-CT theory and imaging,
study design, statistical analysis figure performance, endoscopy done during several times week,
months.*The experimental design is valid. However some comment require answer:
*In methods section: Kits, method or references should be provided for biochemical laboratory
tests for albumin, Bilirubin, PT% and ammonia.
*Page 9, Application and technique of EIS Is valid including,  Child-Pugh classification of grade
A or B. however author should appreciate using the injection sclerotherapy procedure for the
secondary prophylatics of varical bleeding  not just writing the word “prevention “ which is a
vague vocab
*Table 3 Albumin IG, indicated that 6M after EIS p =0.2431 while  12M after EIS p=0.0009 in
comparison with before EIS, however the median nearly the same. Please revise this data.
Also, Child-Pugh score, during 6 M and 12 M the same median but significant in 12 M, not in
6 M, please revise it."
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02424-5 (2022)

Title: Risk factors and predictive nomograms for early death of patients with advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma: a large retrospective study based on the SEER database
Version: 3 Date: 08 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, Zhang and colleagues established a nomogram to predict the survival probability of
early death in patients with advanced HCC using SEER database. The authors concluded that the
nomograms are helpful to identify risk factors for the early death of patients with advanced HCC.
The topic is very interesting. However, while most of the statistical analyses were performed
nicely, the logistic regression model is not appropriate to construct a nomogram compared to
Cox model.  Also, the abstract, method and result section needs more attention to detail. The
method section is not sufficiently addressed to follow.
I would further like to address the following concerns regarding the manuscript:
Abstract:
• I think it would be better to write concisely and report more information with statistics in the
result section (e.g. risk factors with OR, 95% CI) and ROC with 95 CI
Method:
• Lack of information to follow
• How were IVA and IVB defined? Add brief descriptions of definitions.
• What is the follow-up for vital status? When is the study cutoff date?
• How were AFP, fibrosis scores, and stage,…. defined?
• Survival time should be defined clearly.
• Sensitivity analysis. Are the author’s findings robust when survivors were excluded (early
death versus deaths)?
• Nomogram construction would be better in the method section.
Statistical analysis:
• Need to write more clearly. E.g., lines 127-128
• Survival time is available. Why did the author a logistic regression model instead of Cox
proportional hazard multivariable regression?
• The sample size is large enough to run external validation. Why did the authors only internal
validation?
• A thought: survival patterns would give a lot of information about early deaths.
• It would be better to explain how the calibration curves were created and how to interpret them.
• Univariate and multivariate need to be replaced by univariable and multivariable.
Result:
• The result section is confusing and lacks information to follow. Needs more attention to detail.
• Report ORs of risk factor
• Report the significant variables with specific scores in the nomogram. Figures would not be
enough.
Discussion:
• I think the discussion should focus on early deaths of HCC patients since this is the novelty
here. Also, describe the differences between the author’s nomograms of early deaths and the
published nomograms of survival probability of patients with HCC.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02424-5 (2022)

Title: Risk factors and predictive nomograms for early death of patients with advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma: a large retrospective study based on the SEER database
Version: 5 Date: 23 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The manuscript has had considerable improvements, congratulations to the authors.
I suggest small changes/improvements:
1. The authors report the use of multivariate analysis but do not detail the methods used for the
selection of variables. Backward selection? forward selection? Clinical criteria?. Please detail
the methodology.
2. In the results, in addition to reporting OR and p value, please also report the 95% CI. The reader
does not have the ability to analyze the statistical power of the analysis with these 2 indices alone
and, in fact, most people give greater importance to the IC itself than to the reported indices.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02424-5 (2022)

Title: Risk factors and predictive nomograms for early death of patients with advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma: a large retrospective study based on the SEER database
Version: 5 Date: 07 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
I still have significant concerns regarding the appropriate methodology and language structure
of the manuscript. I believed that authors can write manuscripts more succinctly. The sentences
are a little too lengthy. The paper was padded out with many descriptions from statistical
methodology, causing the reader not to follow the main story.
Abstract.
Need to define early death and describe the demographic description of the study cohort.
For example, the author can write like
Of 6,602 study cohorts (mean age xx, xx male, xx white,.. ), xx% and xx% had stage IVA and
IVS, respectively.  On the multivariable analyses, xx, xx, xx, and xx were significantly associated
with early deaths. A nomogram comprising risk factors with the concordance indexes of 0.819
(95% CI: 0.798-0.840) in stage IVA and 0.785 (95% CI:0.764-0.0.806) stage IVB patient for
internal validation.
The author may report c-indexes from one method. Another method can be used as sensitivity
analysis
I do not agree with the author’s approach to using logistic regression. If event time is defined by
time from date to diagnosis to the date of death or to 3 months, whichever came first, the author
can run the cox model. Logistic regression could be acceptable but lost important information
about event time.
The most concern is to use a binary variable of age (aged >40). Aged 40 is not appropriate for
this data where more than 98% are older than 40 years. It means that their findings for risk factors
were not adjusted for the most important confounder, age. Also, the study the author referred
to utilized <40 years as inclusion criteria.
In discussion, the authors need to explain whether their risk factors are consistent with those
from other studies.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02423-6 (2022)

Title: Identification and Validation of Necroptosis-related Prognostic Gene Signature and
Tumor Immune Microenvironment Infiltration Characterization in Esophageal Carcinoma
Version: 2 Date: 07 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
This study successfully constructed a 3-gene necroptosis-related prognostic model in EC.
However, this study should be improved in the following aspects:
(1) This study should add external validations such as independent dataset analysis or experiment
validations. The fact that all the used 173 samples were from UCSC Xena database will
undermine the study’s reliability and generalization ability.
(2) The description of the method part should be more detailed and clearer to make readers fully
understand. For example, in the DEG analysis, the cut-off of the logFC was missing, which will
make it impossible for others to repeat. What’s more, in the statistical analysis part, author said
“The correlation between particular variables was validated using the Spearman's correlation
analysis or Pearson correlation analysis”. However, authors did not explain the scenarios and
conditions under which the different methods are used.
(3) The authors should examine the figures more carefully. For example, Figure S2 is exactly
same as the Figure 2C-D. And the description for the Figure 2C-D in the main text is obviously
confused. As for the Figure 3E and 4E, the P column in the table still has the Excel format. And
all figures should have relative expositions in the main text which is Figure 2B missing.
(4) At last, the authors did not express the significance of the results deeply enough. For example,
in Figure 5A, the author found that there was co-expression pattern among the three genes.
However, the significance of this phenomenon is missing. The author should answer the question
that is it reasonable to establish a prognostic model with three co-expressed genes. Will this
make the information included in this model too little? And the results from the two methods
(Cibersort and Timer) for estimating immune cell infiltration in the Figure 8A-B are inconsistent,
the author should make more in-depth discussion.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02423-6 (2022)

Title: Identification and Validation of Necroptosis-related Prognostic Gene Signature and
Tumor Immune Microenvironment Infiltration Characterization in Esophageal Carcinoma
Version: 4 Date: 21 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Xin Fan
Reviewer's report:
All revisions look good
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02421-8 (2022)

Title: Construction of a novel necroptosis-related lncRNA signature for prognosis prediction
in esophageal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 29 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
The research conducted by Yang Liu and colleagues under the title "Construction of a
novel necroptosis-related lncRNA signature for prognosis in esophageal cancer" shows the
significance in the scientific sense and future potential applications. The authors performed
the analysis by using a dataset of 171 samples obtained from the TCGA database with 160
esophageal cancer samples and 11 samples of normal esophageal tissue to seek necroptosis-
related lncRNAs as well as related genes in EC. Through multi-analysis using packages from
R software and others, the authors succeeded in building a predictive or prognostic model for
EC patients based on a group of biomarkers, including six necroptosis-associated lncRNAs.
The manuscript was also well prepared; therefore, I believe this study should be considered
for publication in the BMC Gastroenterology journal. However, before being published, the
following issues should be clarified to better convince readers, including:
1. The author should re-read the manuscript to correct the errors, for example, AUC value 536
on Page 10, line 222?
2. The author should revise Figure 1 to make the article more logical and understandable to
readers. For example, is the value 159 mentioned in Full-text?
3. In the supplementary section, the author should provide clinical information of 185 cases as
well as information on 171 samples used in this analysis.
4. Please consider using the term "correlation" instead of the expression "relationship/relation."
5. In Figure 7 about the nomogram, please explain more about the parameters. Commonly,
a nomogram should be used to quickly identify conditions (e.g., disease). Could the authors
explain how a clinician can quickly read the results from clinical tests using these six (06)
lncRNAs?
6. The study would be perfect and suitable for publication in the journal of BMC
Gastroenterology if at least one of these three (03) lncRNAs (Z94721.2, AL035461.2, and
AC051619.4) were verified experimentally. The author may consider performing a quick
quantitative qPCR analysis to verify the factual accuracy of this newly built model.
7. Finally, I strongly recommend that authors review the entire manuscript to revise the typos
and other related issues.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02421-8 (2022)

Title: Construction of a novel necroptosis-related lncRNA signature for prognosis prediction
in esophageal cancer
Version: 1 Date: 03 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Weidong Ni
Reviewer's report:
It's a very interesting topic. Esophageal cancer is a significant malignant type of cancer with a
high mortality rate. In this study, the authors showed 6 necroptosis-related lncRNAs as a reliable
prognostic signature for survival, which offered novel potential prognostic markers for patients
with esophagus cancer. However, there are still some issues to be clarified before publication.
Major Comments:
1. In Figs 1, 6C, and 8, most font sizes utilized are too small to be legible. Please redesign to
enhance legibility.
2. Please add some comments for necroptosis-related lncRNA based signatures to predict
prognoses of other gastrointestinal tumors in the discussion section.
3. The conclusions are not rigorous and the current data only support the predicted prognosis,
without any data to support the prospect of treatment.
4. Line 206 in the article, why AMD12-AS1 was not shown in Fig 4D? And provide the titles
of the train, test, and entire set in Fig 4B-D?
5. It seems that the images in Fig.2 are not supporting to draw any conclusion, especially in
Fig 2B and 2C. Providing a cluster analysis of differential genes in Fig 2A may be beneficial to
explore the pattern of lncRNA expression in tumor prognosis.
6. The language of English was poor, and please modified.
Minor Comments:
1. The X- and Y-axis titles of many graphs are omitted, which makes it difficult to understand,
please present.
2. Please avoid the use of generic terms such as Line 270 in the article the word “good” and
replace it with more specific language.
3. There is a mistake in Line 263 in the article “Further more”, please correct “Furthermore”.
4. There is a mistake in Line 259 in the article “type1 IFN reponse exhibited”, please correct
“type1 IFN response exhibited”.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 09 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reported a case of endoscopic resection of a giant esophageal dedifferentiated
liposarcoma using an endoscope-guided snare. Certainly, esophageal dedifferentiated
liposarcoma is a very rare disease. Although they showed a relatively good short-term outcome
of this procedure, there seems to be a lack of novelty and no consideration of concerns about
the oncological safety of their procedure.
1. The efficacy and safety of incisional therapy for benign refractory esophageal stricture
have already been fully validated. It was not clear how the endoscopic ultrasonography-guided
incision therapy performed by the authors showed an advantage over the existing incision
therapy.
2. The small number of cases and the short observation period are factors that lack
persuasiveness, and I think it is necessary to make medium- to long-term observations with a
larger number of cases.
3. The text structure of this study is too childish and typographical errors are very noticeable.
Therefore, I have to say that it does not form the body of a scientific paper. Proofreading in
native English should be done.
4. Most of the references were articles published in local minor journals, and only 5 out of 16
articles were searchable in Pubmed. You should avoid citing a lot of hard-to-find literature in
many areas.
Therefore, this reviewer considers that this study is not suitable for publication in BMC
Gastroenterology, as it is.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 12 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
In this article, the authors investigate the efficacy and safety of EUS guided cutting scar of
esophageal stricture after EIS. It is a challenging and interesting report. However, there are
some concerns about this article. 1. The tile could be EUS guided cutting scar of esophageal
stricture after EIS. 2. Objectiinve could be "To investigate efficacy and safety of EUS guiding
to cut scar of esophageal stricture after EIS. " 3. In the Methods, the authors did not present
the brand name of dualkife and the mode in case of using the knife. ( e.g. endocut 100W).  In
addition, the authors did not explain the procedures enough. 4. To screen the residual varices,
the authors could use the doppler EUS. It may be a dangerous method without using the doppler
method. 5. The authors should explain what is Stooler classification in the article. 6. The authors
should present the exact data(e.g., EF<50 %) in the exclusion criteria.7. Did the authors confirm
the scar lesion exactly? Please present the examples of one to twelve o'clock scars. 8. Most
cases are HBV patitents. Please explain the reasons. 9. In the table, please add the units of EIS
and ballooning time. 10. The endoscopic images are poor focus and have no arrows. 11. In
Conclusion, the sentences " This study ~" should be in the Dissccuion. 12. Extensive English
editing is necessary. 13. In conclusion, this study is interesting; however, the authors should
carefully consider this method's indication due to the risk of bleeding and perforation. It might
present a dangerous take-home message.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript. In this manuscript entitled “Ultrasoic endoscopy
guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy”, the authors reported that
ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar was safe and reliable, which could reduce the occurrence
of perforation and bleeding. This study describes a meaningful subject; however, I have some
concerns for clarifying the following points.
Major concerns
1. Please consider stating the purpose of the study in the Introduction.
2. Please consider describing the details of the technique used to incise the stenosis with the
Dual-knife (e.g., the settings of the high-frequency generator, the procedure, etc.). Were there
cases with multiple incisions?
3. Since the diagnostic method based on EUS findings when measuring the thickness of fibrosis
by EUS against the stenosis is unclear, I recommend that the authors describe the diagnostic
procedure using EUS in detail. If the stenosis is strong, the fibrosis will be thicker. Since
ultrasound attenuates at depth, it makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the stenosis.
4. There appears to be no mention of research ethics; please consider including an ethics
statement, with the IRB approval number.
5. If there was a follow-up protocol after stenosis treatment that includes the frequency of upper
endoscopic examinations and consultations, I recommend that the authors describe details of
this protocol.
6. The author states that ultrasound endoscopy-guided incisions can reduce stenosis and
perforation; I would recommend discussing this within the DISCUSSION, citing literature on
the frequency of complications in incisional treatment when EUS is not used.
Minor concerns
1. Method, Inclusion criteria:
Please consider describing in the text how the stenosis diameter is measured.
2. Method, Exclusion criteria:
The exclusion criteria (1) and (2) are a bit unclear. Please consider providing details if clear
criteria are available.
3. Method, Assessment "The body of a standard gastroscope can pass through the esophagus
without any resistance"
Please consider providing a comprehensive list of the names of the scopes used.
4. Please provide the details of the ultrasonic endoscope.
5. Please check the entire manuscript for typographical errors.
#Result: “Child-plug”: Is Child-Pugh correct#
#Result: “There were among 1 to 6 times of ESI fefore”: Should it be "before"?
#Result: “Distances to incisor of the scar was among 34cm to 39cm, and derections”: Is
“direction” correct#
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
I write you in regards to manuscript # ID bd7c3c98-a01a-4cd4-9ca2-85a4f30bb7fc “Ultrasoic
endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy" which you
submitted to the BMC Gastroenterology.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript
has been denied publication in the BMC Gastroenterology.
The title of this manuscript is “Ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture
after variceal sclerotherapy ". The manuscript provides very interesting data, but it still needs
some considerable revision.
Major points
1. You lack detailed explanations on how to do it. For example, the endoscope used, the high
frequency generator, the equipment settings at some mode of incision, etc.
2. You lack a technical explanation. How to check the depth of incision and a guide of the
endoscopic findings.
3. Your dissertation is biased in citations. Reference 4 alone is not sufficient as an international
guideline. It is also advisable to refer to guidelines, recommendations and announcements
from the American Society of Gastroenterological Endoscopy, the American Society of
Gastroenterology, GUT, UEG, etc.
4. It shows the medical standards in China for benign esophageal stricture after EIS. However,
the frequency of EIS complications has not been shown internationally. It is necessary to show
through the literature that it is a complication that does not depend on the medical standard or
technical level of each country.
Minor points
1. References 12-13 are papers on "malignant stenosis" and "postoperative surgery". Please
consider that the papers to be cited are "beneficial stenosis" and "after endoscopic treatment".
2. In conclusion, it is necessary to settle by RCT with balloon expansion, which is the mainstream
of the conventional method. However, due to the low frequency of complications, it may take
some time before clinical conclusions can be reached. It is hoped that you will give your thoughts
on when the incision method is better than balloon dilation.
That is all for my opinion on this manuscript.
Thank you.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 30 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors showed that endoscopic incision guided by ultrasonic endoscopy was effective for
esophageal stricture due to EIS. The treatment method was interesting. However, the study's
methodology was not explained enough, which is a critical issue. Furthermore, there were lots
of grammatical errors in this manuscript. I have raised the following questions.
1) What are the hypothesis and aim of this study? Please clarify them in the introduction.
2) Are there any previous reports that showed the efficacy of EUS guided stricture cutting? In
other words, what is the novel point of this study?
3) How did you evaluate dysphagia? Did you use a validated questionnaire?
Please show the degree of stricture after treatment.
4) Please clarify how to identify EIS scar by EUS in the method section.
5) How did the EUS findings guide the incision by dualknife?
Did you decide the length of incision or depth of incision depending on the EUS findings?
6) What is the reason you chose the subject treated by EIS? Why were patients with esophageal
strictures due to other reasons (e.g., ESD) not included?
7) Please specifically write the limitations of the study.
8) To conclude that the EUS guided endoscopic incision is effective, a comparison between the
endoscopic incision with the EUS guide and without it is needed.
9) Please add the figure showing the stricture improved by the treatment.
10) There are too many grammatical errors, and some sentences are difficult to understand.
Please check carefully and consider rewriting.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 09 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
This manuscript is described cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy. The
manuscript is concisely written and the aim is clear. However endoscopic incision therapy is
common in benign esophageal stricture. And English of the manuscript has to be checked.
Title
Is “Ultrasoic” a miss spell of “Ultrasonic“?
In page 3 result, line4
Is “Child-Plug classification” a miss spell of “Child-Pugh”?
Figure
The date of operation is in the photo. The author should mask the date.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 14 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
- The proposed title reflects more the presentation of a treatment method than a clinical study
that aims to present the effectiveness of the method
Abstract: “Result: The dysphagia was obviously relieved in 9 patients during follow-up,  and 1
patient suffered dysphagia again after the treatment. There was no complications of perforation,
bleeding and infection among the paitents”. – the assessment of pre- and post-procedure
dysphagia should be objectified either clinically or endoscopically.
Methods
- The design of the study is missing - the model proposed to achieve the goal.
-  Mention how to appreciate the results.
-, Efficacy: The dysphagia was obviously relieved in 9 patients during follow-up among three
months to six months. 1 patient suffered dysphagia again within one month after the treatment,
and endoscope  found that the degree of stricture was grade III.” – to support this statement you
must present statistical results.
Discussions
- It is necessary to present the results of this study in comparison with the data in the literature
- Language corrections are required.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 2 Date: 03 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The small number of patients included, the short follow-up period, the absence of an objective
way of presenting the results as well as the lack of statistical analysis do not allow in my opinion
the formulation of pertinent conclusions.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02420-9 (2022)

Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 2 Date: 06 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors answered my queries point-by-point manner. However, further clarification and
elaboration are necessary for publication. I raised the following queries.
1) In the discussion, the authors wrote, ‘the scar tissue is thicker than the normal mucosa, and
the location and depth of the scar can be measured exactly.’ This information should be moved
to the introduction.
2) What was the hypothesis of this study? Why did the authors want to investigate the efficacy
and safety of EUS for cutting the esophageal scar after EUS?
3) In the first paragraph of the discussion, the authors wrote the mechanism of esophageal scar
after EIS. However, this is not the main point of this study. Please elaborate on the overall
structure of the manuscript.
4) The authors added Figure 4. Is this the same case as Figure 3?
5) The authors used both ‘esophageal’ and ‘oesophageal.’ Please use either of them.
Review for 10.1186/s12876-022-02413-8 (2022)

Title: Prediction of the need for emergency endoscopic treatment for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding and new score model: A retrospective study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Ryuhei Jinushi
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to read this very valuable study.
I am very interested in novel scoring models for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
I would like to confirm a few points, which are listed below.
Major comments
1. Your study included patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy within 6 hours.
Is there a rationale for setting the time frame at 6 hours? With reference to previous reports,
what is your opinion that 12 or 24 hours would be a better study design for this study to be
more generalizable?
2. Do you think the above new score model is versatile, not only for high-volume centers?