Title: A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver
biopsy
Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The Manuscript is well written and sound. This issue is of great significance for hepatologists
and will be of much interest for clinicians.
There are several points to be considered:
1. 'The risk of bleeding after liver biopsy was 10.9%, which could lead to patient death[9]'.- The
reference is old (9), and from personal experience the rate of bleeding events is lower than 10%.
Authors should refer to newer clinical studies or metaanalysis to discuss this issue.
2. The authors should define in the Introduction, at the very beginning,  that the study is about
biopsies in diffuse liver diseases and not about biopsies of focal liver lesions.
3. 'The mean time required for haemostasis was 0.4±0.2 minutes. '- in the observation group?
4. The authors mentioned direct biopsy technique in the discussion. The authors should  briefly
discuss differences between those 2 techniques  in terms of durations of procedure and reported
rates of side effects since the direct biopsy technique is used worldwide.
5. How was the bleeding episode defined? How was severe bleeding episode defined? Did any
patients underwent operation? Where there any fatal complications?
Title: A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver
biopsy
Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The Manuscript is well written and sound. This issue is of great significance for hepatologists
and will be of much interest for clinicians.
There are several points to be considered:
1. 'The risk of bleeding after liver biopsy was 10.9%, which could lead to patient death[9]'.- The
reference is old (9), and from personal experience the rate of bleeding events is lower than 10%.
Authors should refer to newer clinical studies or metaanalysis to discuss this issue.
2. The authors should define in the Introduction, at the very beginning,  that the study is about
biopsies in diffuse liver diseases and not about biopsies of focal liver lesions.
3. 'The mean time required for haemostasis was 0.4±0.2 minutes. '- in the observation group?
4. The authors mentioned direct biopsy technique in the discussion. The authors should  briefly
discuss differences between those 2 techniques  in terms of durations of procedure and reported
rates of side effects since the direct biopsy technique is used worldwide.
5. How was the bleeding episode defined? How was severe bleeding episode defined? Did any
patients underwent operation? Where there any fatal complications?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver
biopsy
Version: 0 Date: 11 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
The Manuscript is well written and sound. This issue is of great significance for hepatologists
and will be of much interest for clinicians.
There are several points to be considered:
1. 'The risk of bleeding after liver biopsy was 10.9%, which could lead to patient death[9]'.- The
reference is old (9), and from personal experience the rate of bleeding events is lower than 10%.
Authors should refer to newer clinical studies or metaanalysis to discuss this issue.
2. The authors should define in the Introduction, at the very beginning,  that the study is about
biopsies in diffuse liver diseases and not about biopsies of focal liver lesions.
3. 'The mean time required for haemostasis was 0.4±0.2 minutes. '- in the observation group?
4. The authors mentioned direct biopsy technique in the discussion. The authors should  briefly
discuss differences between those 2 techniques  in terms of durations of procedure and reported
rates of side effects since the direct biopsy technique is used worldwide.
5. How was the bleeding episode defined? How was severe bleeding episode defined? Did any
patients underwent operation? Where there any fatal complications?
assistant