Title: Accessory hepatic vein recanalization for Budd-Chiari syndrome: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 10 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting work. I have
the following comments.
1. Abstract - What is HC recanalization? Need to expand this or is this an error?
2. Methods – The authors provided key words for database search. This is insufficient as a full
search strategy for at least 1 database should be provided in a way that is reproducible.
3. Methods – The authors did not mention regarding inclusion of abstracts. Were they included
or not and what was the rationale?
4. Results – The authors assessed publication bias analysis using Egger’s for all outcomes
including those with <10 studies as well. Usually, the publication should not be assessed if
no. of studies are <10. I suggest the authors remove these. (https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
chapter_10/10_4_3_1_recommendations_on_testing_for_funnel_plot_asymmetry.htm)
5. Results – Did the studies provide stratified results based on how recanalization was achieved?
Stent insertion, balloon dilation, etc.
6. What about use of anticoagulation? Were the results any different based on type of
anticoagulation used?
7. The authors should also include in the limitations that all studies originated from one country
which questions the generalizability of the results.
8. Was the recanalization procedure performed by interventional radiology or vascular ? Please
add this in table 2.
9. I did not see the MOOSE checklist associated with this Meta. Please provide that.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have included the comments above. The manuscript may be accepted for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily answered and the manuscript is modified.
Title: Accessory hepatic vein recanalization for Budd-Chiari syndrome: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 10 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting work. I have
the following comments.
1. Abstract - What is HC recanalization? Need to expand this or is this an error?
2. Methods – The authors provided key words for database search. This is insufficient as a full
search strategy for at least 1 database should be provided in a way that is reproducible.
3. Methods – The authors did not mention regarding inclusion of abstracts. Were they included
or not and what was the rationale?
4. Results – The authors assessed publication bias analysis using Egger’s for all outcomes
including those with <10 studies as well. Usually, the publication should not be assessed if
no. of studies are <10. I suggest the authors remove these. (https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
chapter_10/10_4_3_1_recommendations_on_testing_for_funnel_plot_asymmetry.htm)
5. Results – Did the studies provide stratified results based on how recanalization was achieved?
Stent insertion, balloon dilation, etc.
6. What about use of anticoagulation? Were the results any different based on type of
anticoagulation used?
7. The authors should also include in the limitations that all studies originated from one country
which questions the generalizability of the results.
8. Was the recanalization procedure performed by interventional radiology or vascular ? Please
add this in table 2.
9. I did not see the MOOSE checklist associated with this Meta. Please provide that.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have included the comments above. The manuscript may be accepted for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily answered and the manuscript is modified.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Accessory hepatic vein recanalization for Budd-Chiari syndrome: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Version: 2 Date: 10 Aug 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting work. I have
the following comments.
1. Abstract - What is HC recanalization? Need to expand this or is this an error?
2. Methods – The authors provided key words for database search. This is insufficient as a full
search strategy for at least 1 database should be provided in a way that is reproducible.
3. Methods – The authors did not mention regarding inclusion of abstracts. Were they included
or not and what was the rationale?
4. Results – The authors assessed publication bias analysis using Egger’s for all outcomes
including those with <10 studies as well. Usually, the publication should not be assessed if
no. of studies are <10. I suggest the authors remove these. (https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
chapter_10/10_4_3_1_recommendations_on_testing_for_funnel_plot_asymmetry.htm)
5. Results – Did the studies provide stratified results based on how recanalization was achieved?
Stent insertion, balloon dilation, etc.
6. What about use of anticoagulation? Were the results any different based on type of
anticoagulation used?
7. The authors should also include in the limitations that all studies originated from one country
which questions the generalizability of the results.
8. Was the recanalization procedure performed by interventional radiology or vascular ? Please
add this in table 2.
9. I did not see the MOOSE checklist associated with this Meta. Please provide that.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have included the comments above. The manuscript may be accepted for publication if above
comments are satisfactorily answered and the manuscript is modified.
assistant