Lorenzo-Zúñiga V, Bustamante-Balén M, Pons-Beltrán V. Prevention of late complications with coverage agents in endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions: Current landscape in gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2021; 27(15): 1563-1568 [PMID: 33958843 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i15.1563]
Reader's ID:
03967085
Submitted on:
May 15, 2021, 13:39
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
Useful clinical pearls for the clinical practice.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
Thank you very much for your comments.
Reader's ID:
05746825
Submitted on:
April 25, 2021, 05:11
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
This review systematically collect and review the currently available literature regarding the prevention of DB and DP with coverage agents after endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection of LNPCLs, it demonstrated some meaningful results.But there are still some shortcomings:
First, the database of literature screening should not be limited to PubMed, other common medical databases should also be screened, such as Embase, Medline, Ovid, and Web of Science, so that the data obtained will be more comprehensive and the results more convincing.
Second, as a review, 23 references are far from enough and can not show the latest progress to some extent.
Background introduction should be appropriately referenced some authoritative guidelines or high-quotes:
Such as 1.Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2017;49(3):270-297. doi:10.1055/s-0043-102569.
2.Forbes, Nauzer et al. “Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Does Not Prevent Delayed Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Routine Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.” The American journal of gastroenterology vol. 115,5 (2020): 774-782. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000585.
Some classical and latest literatures are not included, for example:
1. Albéniz, Eduardo et al. “Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.” Gastrointestinal endoscopy vol. 91,4 (2020): 868-878.e3. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.10.013.
2.Pohl H, Kaminski MF. Mindful choice of endoscopic resection for large colorectal lesions. Gut. 2018 Aug;67(8):1374-1375. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315724. Epub 2018 Jan 29.
3.Albéniz, Eduardo et al. “Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.” Gastrointestinal endoscopy vol. 91,4 (2020): 868-878.e3. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.10.013.
Third, it might be better to draw an overall pattern diagram in this article.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
Firstly, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Gastroenterology.
Secondly, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor, and submit it online to World Journal of Gastroenterology at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for Letter to the Editor. The article processing charge will be exempted for Letter to the Editor. The Letter to the Editor will be published online after peer review. The guidelines for Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219.
Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor to promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.