Paduani GF, Felipe LM, De Paulo GA, Lenz L, Martins BC, Matuguma SE, Safatle-Ribeiro AV, De Mello ES, Maluf-Filho F. Prospective randomized study comparing Franseen 22-gauge vs standard 22-gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound guided sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 17(4): 101998 [PMID: 40291131 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i4.101998]
Reader's ID:
03733303
Submitted on:
April 17, 2025, 14:26
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:
The reader possesses professional expertise in digestive endoscopy, EUS-guided biopsy, and tumor diagnosis. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. According to the standards for commenting on published articles, which include evaluation of study design, statistical methods, and reliability of conclusions, this study is a well-designed prospective randomized controlled trial with clear data analysis and high scientific quality. The language is generally fluent, though some sentences could be further polished. The reader believes that this study, which compares the diagnostic sensitivity of two types of needles under conditions without rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE), has significant clinical relevance and suggests that future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate the broader applicability of the findings.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
Thank you very much for your comments.