Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1006-0 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The role of endoscopic dilation and stents in refractory benign esophageal strictures: a 
retrospective analysis.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 02 Oct 2018  
 
Reviewer: Magnus Halland  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The authors should be commended on s tudying outcomes among patients with benign refractory 
strictures.  
 
Major comments:  
1. References need to be listed in the order they appear - for example, in the introduction the 
numbering of references start at "12" , and throughout the manuscript the references are not 
presented in order  
 
2. The major outcome is vague. It is listed as a  persistent dysphagia -free period - how was this 
measured please? Same for definition of endoscopic success  
 
3. Suggest a ROC analysis once defined endpoints have been stated and the tools by which you 
measured these endpoints have been defined  
 
4. English l anguage needs to be improved throughout the manuscript.  
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.  
 
Yes 
 
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 sta tistical 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:  
 
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in t he 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 organisat ion 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 reimbursemen ts, 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 t his 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 o f 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