Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0921-9 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Prospective comparison of slow -pull and standard s uction techniques of endoscopic 
ultrasound -guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 01 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Pietro Fusaroli  
 
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 r eport which cannot be included in a text format.  
 
 
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
 
 
The authors presented a head to head comparison study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of tow 
techniques for EUS -FNA: standard technique  (using suction) vs. slow pull (using slow retraction 
of the stylet but no suction)  
 
 
The research was properly conducted and the manuscript is well written.  
 
 
 
Major remarks  
 
1) Please exclude from the results the distinction made between Cook and Olympus need les 
since the study was not powered to detect this difference.  
 
 
2) 10-15 mg of midazolam seems quite a high dosage for sedation; please explain the 
reasons and the duration of exams  
 
 
 
Minor remarks  
 
1) Page 5 line 90: please correct "...into the needle..."  
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
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 comme nts 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 a n 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicat e the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration 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 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 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 c ontent 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  
 
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