Title: Associations of patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) and
NUTRISCORE with survival in gastric cancer patients: timing matters, a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Xiangliang Liu
Reviewer's report:
The study is novel in its choice of topic, assessing the possibility of a joint assessment of the
traditional gold standard and a relatively recent emerging score, which is innovative. The design
of the study is reasonable, the data can be processed using appropriate statistical methods, the
results can be interpreted appropriately, and the question of assessment tools and timing for
gastric cancer patients can be answered to a certain extent, but there are still some questions that
need to be answered in this paper.
1. the design of the intended study chose the PG-SGA, a traditional gold standard for the
assessment of oncology patients, a tool that can assess the risk of malnutrition and the degree of
malnutrition, and why the NUTRISCORE score was chosen as the tool for the joint assessment
when the joint was chosen, simply because this tool has not been validated, or some other factors.
2. in the absence of a detailed description in the article of how the selection of time points was
made and whether the determination of the three time points was supported by previous studies.
3. the authors applied a large number of tables to corroborate the authenticity of the article,
whether the results of the determination and analysis of serum nutritional (albumin, prealbumin,
etc.) and anthropometric indicators (calf muscle circumference, muscle strength, etc.) according
to patients under different scoring classifications (e.g., PG-SGA >9, NUTRISCORE >5) were
conducted, and whether the serological results possess a stronger objectivity compared to the
scale and can be used to a certain To a certain extent, the authors' opinion can be testified. The
authors also mentioned in their discussion previous studies of this type, so this part of the data
could be considered for addition.
The results of this study show that the PG-SGA has demonstrated its superiority as a prognostic
assessment tool; in view of the performance of the NUTRISCORE and the existence of some
confounding factors between the two, is it necessary to recommend a combined analysis at 2-3
months postoperatively in the conclusions.
5. As mentioned by the authors limitations: due to the inconsistent number of people in each
assessment, it is likely that the study conclusions are biased due to factors such as adherence
and inclusion of candidates.
Title: Associations of patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) and
NUTRISCORE with survival in gastric cancer patients: timing matters, a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Xiangliang Liu
Reviewer's report:
The study is novel in its choice of topic, assessing the possibility of a joint assessment of the
traditional gold standard and a relatively recent emerging score, which is innovative. The design
of the study is reasonable, the data can be processed using appropriate statistical methods, the
results can be interpreted appropriately, and the question of assessment tools and timing for
gastric cancer patients can be answered to a certain extent, but there are still some questions that
need to be answered in this paper.
1. the design of the intended study chose the PG-SGA, a traditional gold standard for the
assessment of oncology patients, a tool that can assess the risk of malnutrition and the degree of
malnutrition, and why the NUTRISCORE score was chosen as the tool for the joint assessment
when the joint was chosen, simply because this tool has not been validated, or some other factors.
2. in the absence of a detailed description in the article of how the selection of time points was
made and whether the determination of the three time points was supported by previous studies.
3. the authors applied a large number of tables to corroborate the authenticity of the article,
whether the results of the determination and analysis of serum nutritional (albumin, prealbumin,
etc.) and anthropometric indicators (calf muscle circumference, muscle strength, etc.) according
to patients under different scoring classifications (e.g., PG-SGA >9, NUTRISCORE >5) were
conducted, and whether the serological results possess a stronger objectivity compared to the
scale and can be used to a certain To a certain extent, the authors' opinion can be testified. The
authors also mentioned in their discussion previous studies of this type, so this part of the data
could be considered for addition.
The results of this study show that the PG-SGA has demonstrated its superiority as a prognostic
assessment tool; in view of the performance of the NUTRISCORE and the existence of some
confounding factors between the two, is it necessary to recommend a combined analysis at 2-3
months postoperatively in the conclusions.
5. As mentioned by the authors limitations: due to the inconsistent number of people in each
assessment, it is likely that the study conclusions are biased due to factors such as adherence
and inclusion of candidates.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Associations of patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) and
NUTRISCORE with survival in gastric cancer patients: timing matters, a retrospective cohort
study
Version: 1 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Xiangliang Liu
Reviewer's report:
The study is novel in its choice of topic, assessing the possibility of a joint assessment of the
traditional gold standard and a relatively recent emerging score, which is innovative. The design
of the study is reasonable, the data can be processed using appropriate statistical methods, the
results can be interpreted appropriately, and the question of assessment tools and timing for
gastric cancer patients can be answered to a certain extent, but there are still some questions that
need to be answered in this paper.
1. the design of the intended study chose the PG-SGA, a traditional gold standard for the
assessment of oncology patients, a tool that can assess the risk of malnutrition and the degree of
malnutrition, and why the NUTRISCORE score was chosen as the tool for the joint assessment
when the joint was chosen, simply because this tool has not been validated, or some other factors.
2. in the absence of a detailed description in the article of how the selection of time points was
made and whether the determination of the three time points was supported by previous studies.
3. the authors applied a large number of tables to corroborate the authenticity of the article,
whether the results of the determination and analysis of serum nutritional (albumin, prealbumin,
etc.) and anthropometric indicators (calf muscle circumference, muscle strength, etc.) according
to patients under different scoring classifications (e.g., PG-SGA >9, NUTRISCORE >5) were
conducted, and whether the serological results possess a stronger objectivity compared to the
scale and can be used to a certain To a certain extent, the authors' opinion can be testified. The
authors also mentioned in their discussion previous studies of this type, so this part of the data
could be considered for addition.
The results of this study show that the PG-SGA has demonstrated its superiority as a prognostic
assessment tool; in view of the performance of the NUTRISCORE and the existence of some
confounding factors between the two, is it necessary to recommend a combined analysis at 2-3
months postoperatively in the conclusions.
5. As mentioned by the authors limitations: due to the inconsistent number of people in each
assessment, it is likely that the study conclusions are biased due to factors such as adherence
and inclusion of candidates.
assistant