Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 09 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
thanks for the improvements
however the main problems remained unsolved: the results did not changed at all (you declared
that you add in the PSM calculation the number of cycles but you added only the number of
cycles in the table.
the conclusion are not supported by your data and they do not make sense (you cannot recommed
to select patients for NACT based on the response!)
please, revise the manuscript according to the previous comments.
Focus your analysis only on predictors of response to NACT.
clearly state the limitations of the study
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 09 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
thanks for the improvements
however the main problems remained unsolved: the results did not changed at all (you declared
that you add in the PSM calculation the number of cycles but you added only the number of
cycles in the table.
the conclusion are not supported by your data and they do not make sense (you cannot recommed
to select patients for NACT based on the response!)
please, revise the manuscript according to the previous comments.
Focus your analysis only on predictors of response to NACT.
clearly state the limitations of the study
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Impact of Pathological Complete Response on Survival in Gastric Cancer After
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 09 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: dear authors
thanks for the improvements
however the main problems remained unsolved: the results did not changed at all (you declared
that you add in the PSM calculation the number of cycles but you added only the number of
cycles in the table.
the conclusion are not supported by your data and they do not make sense (you cannot recommed
to select patients for NACT based on the response!)
please, revise the manuscript according to the previous comments.
Focus your analysis only on predictors of response to NACT.
clearly state the limitations of the study
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
please see my comments above
assistant