Reviewer's report
Title:Child-Pugh score is superior to model for end-stage liver disease score
(MELD) in predicting survival on and need for removal from waiting list in patients
awaiting liver transplantation
Version: 1Date:9 May 2009
Reviewer: Teh-Ia Huo
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the predictive accuracy for the outcome between the
CTP and MELD system. They concluded that CTP is superior to the MELD for
outcome prediction. There have been abundant studies in this regard during the
past 6-7 years. This study does not provide new or novel information.
The MELD has been chosen by the UNOS since 2002 in the US as the major
reference system for organ allocation in liver transplantation. The authors prvided
data to argue against this strategy. However, the case number in this study was
relatively small (n=268). More importantly, the authors did not report the AUC
values for CTP and MELD, and the p value for the statistical difference (Fig. 2),
which I suppose there is no statistical difference between CTP and MELD.
Therefore, their findings do not justify the conclusion.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Child-Pugh score is superior to model for end-stage liver disease score
(MELD) in predicting survival on and need for removal from waiting list in patients
awaiting liver transplantation
Version: 1Date:9 May 2009
Reviewer: Teh-Ia Huo
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the predictive accuracy for the outcome between the
CTP and MELD system. They concluded that CTP is superior to the MELD for
outcome prediction. There have been abundant studies in this regard during the
past 6-7 years. This study does not provide new or novel information.
The MELD has been chosen by the UNOS since 2002 in the US as the major
reference system for organ allocation in liver transplantation. The authors prvided
data to argue against this strategy. However, the case number in this study was
relatively small (n=268). More importantly, the authors did not report the AUC
values for CTP and MELD, and the p value for the statistical difference (Fig. 2),
which I suppose there is no statistical difference between CTP and MELD.
Therefore, their findings do not justify the conclusion.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Child-Pugh score is superior to model for end-stage liver disease score
(MELD) in predicting survival on and need for removal from waiting list in patients
awaiting liver transplantation
Version: 1Date:9 May 2009
Reviewer: Teh-Ia Huo
Reviewer's report:
The authors investigated the predictive accuracy for the outcome between the
CTP and MELD system. They concluded that CTP is superior to the MELD for
outcome prediction. There have been abundant studies in this regard during the
past 6-7 years. This study does not provide new or novel information.
The MELD has been chosen by the UNOS since 2002 in the US as the major
reference system for organ allocation in liver transplantation. The authors prvided
data to argue against this strategy. However, the case number in this study was
relatively small (n=268). More importantly, the authors did not report the AUC
values for CTP and MELD, and the p value for the statistical difference (Fig. 2),
which I suppose there is no statistical difference between CTP and MELD.
Therefore, their findings do not justify the conclusion.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, and I have assessed the statistics in my report.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant