Reviewer's report
Title:The comparison of grey-scale ultrasonic and clinical features of
hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma in children: a retrospective study
for ten years
Version: 1Date:27 February 2011
Reviewer: Roxana Sirli
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory Revisions
- In the workout of a suspected tumor, imaging methods such as contrast MRI
and contrast CT have a very good diagnostic value. Have any been performed in
the series of patients included in the study? The authors should state it.
- Also, in inconclusive cases after imaging methods, a liver biopsy should be
performed for certifying the diagnosis, before treatment is initiated. From the
Patients and methods section I understood that in the majority of cases (25/42)
the tumor type was certified by the postoperative histological examination. A
comment should be added regarding this aspect.
- In the Patients and methods section, Ultrasonic image acquisition and analysis
– last paragraph ”The echo nature of the background liver was recorded as
hepatic cirrhosis or not.” Details should be added regarding the diagnosis criteria.
Also, the ultrasound aspect of the liver could be quite normal in cirrhosis, so what
other criteria were used for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis.
- Was HCV infection searched for?
Minor Essential Revisions
- The figure numbers do not correspond to the legend (ex. Figure 3 –
corresponding legend is 2C, Figure 4-legend 2C, figure 5- legend 3A, etc)
- The English language should be revised by a native speaker; (ex – wrong use
of the past tense: first line of introduction “Two-thirds of the pediatric primary liver
tumors were malignant” and in the same paragraph „The two malignant liver
tumors had some similar clinical and imaging features but the prognosis and
treatments were quite different”.
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: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:The comparison of grey-scale ultrasonic and clinical features of
hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma in children: a retrospective study
for ten years
Version: 1Date:27 February 2011
Reviewer: Roxana Sirli
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory Revisions
- In the workout of a suspected tumor, imaging methods such as contrast MRI
and contrast CT have a very good diagnostic value. Have any been performed in
the series of patients included in the study? The authors should state it.
- Also, in inconclusive cases after imaging methods, a liver biopsy should be
performed for certifying the diagnosis, before treatment is initiated. From the
Patients and methods section I understood that in the majority of cases (25/42)
the tumor type was certified by the postoperative histological examination. A
comment should be added regarding this aspect.
- In the Patients and methods section, Ultrasonic image acquisition and analysis
– last paragraph ”The echo nature of the background liver was recorded as
hepatic cirrhosis or not.” Details should be added regarding the diagnosis criteria.
Also, the ultrasound aspect of the liver could be quite normal in cirrhosis, so what
other criteria were used for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis.
- Was HCV infection searched for?
Minor Essential Revisions
- The figure numbers do not correspond to the legend (ex. Figure 3 –
corresponding legend is 2C, Figure 4-legend 2C, figure 5- legend 3A, etc)
- The English language should be revised by a native speaker; (ex – wrong use
of the past tense: first line of introduction “Two-thirds of the pediatric primary liver
tumors were malignant” and in the same paragraph „The two malignant liver
tumors had some similar clinical and imaging features but the prognosis and
treatments were quite different”.
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: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:The comparison of grey-scale ultrasonic and clinical features of
hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma in children: a retrospective study
for ten years
Version: 1Date:27 February 2011
Reviewer: Roxana Sirli
Reviewer's report:
Major compulsory Revisions
- In the workout of a suspected tumor, imaging methods such as contrast MRI
and contrast CT have a very good diagnostic value. Have any been performed in
the series of patients included in the study? The authors should state it.
- Also, in inconclusive cases after imaging methods, a liver biopsy should be
performed for certifying the diagnosis, before treatment is initiated. From the
Patients and methods section I understood that in the majority of cases (25/42)
the tumor type was certified by the postoperative histological examination. A
comment should be added regarding this aspect.
- In the Patients and methods section, Ultrasonic image acquisition and analysis
– last paragraph ”The echo nature of the background liver was recorded as
hepatic cirrhosis or not.” Details should be added regarding the diagnosis criteria.
Also, the ultrasound aspect of the liver could be quite normal in cirrhosis, so what
other criteria were used for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis.
- Was HCV infection searched for?
Minor Essential Revisions
- The figure numbers do not correspond to the legend (ex. Figure 3 –
corresponding legend is 2C, Figure 4-legend 2C, figure 5- legend 3A, etc)
- The English language should be revised by a native speaker; (ex – wrong use
of the past tense: first line of introduction “Two-thirds of the pediatric primary liver
tumors were malignant” and in the same paragraph „The two malignant liver
tumors had some similar clinical and imaging features but the prognosis and
treatments were quite different”.
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: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant