Title: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT combined with contrast-enhanced MRI
for colorectal liver metastases: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This is obviously already a revised version of the manuscript. However, both the manuscript
itself and a reply to the first review should meet certain formal requirements. This is certainly
not the case for the response letter.
The correspondence addresses, e.g. superman_357@163.com, also lack a certain seriousness?
Why is there no institute address used? Furthermore, the question arises as to why there is no
clinical trial number and no consent for publication.
However, the study is otherwise methodologically ok and the results are not surprising.
Nevertheless, I think that most cases can be clarified using MRI only.
This is probably also practiced in many countries. In most cases, however, a staging CT or PET/
CT is performed beforehand and when there is a questionable finding in the liver. The planned
dual use of MRI and CT will certainly not become established in routine clinical practice, but
will be reserved for individual cases.
The sample size estimation section is very confusing and certainly needs to be edited. The
formula cannot be read in its present form and the variables cannot be assigned. The only
question is whether this is actually needed at all.
What does the “Deceleration” section mean after the discussion?
All in all, there is still a lot that needs to be changed before the manuscript can be published.
Title: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT combined with contrast-enhanced MRI
for colorectal liver metastases: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This is obviously already a revised version of the manuscript. However, both the manuscript
itself and a reply to the first review should meet certain formal requirements. This is certainly
not the case for the response letter.
The correspondence addresses, e.g. superman_357@163.com, also lack a certain seriousness?
Why is there no institute address used? Furthermore, the question arises as to why there is no
clinical trial number and no consent for publication.
However, the study is otherwise methodologically ok and the results are not surprising.
Nevertheless, I think that most cases can be clarified using MRI only.
This is probably also practiced in many countries. In most cases, however, a staging CT or PET/
CT is performed beforehand and when there is a questionable finding in the liver. The planned
dual use of MRI and CT will certainly not become established in routine clinical practice, but
will be reserved for individual cases.
The sample size estimation section is very confusing and certainly needs to be edited. The
formula cannot be read in its present form and the variables cannot be assigned. The only
question is whether this is actually needed at all.
What does the “Deceleration” section mean after the discussion?
All in all, there is still a lot that needs to be changed before the manuscript can be published.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT combined with contrast-enhanced MRI
for colorectal liver metastases: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 02 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Dear authors,
This is obviously already a revised version of the manuscript. However, both the manuscript
itself and a reply to the first review should meet certain formal requirements. This is certainly
not the case for the response letter.
The correspondence addresses, e.g. superman_357@163.com, also lack a certain seriousness?
Why is there no institute address used? Furthermore, the question arises as to why there is no
clinical trial number and no consent for publication.
However, the study is otherwise methodologically ok and the results are not surprising.
Nevertheless, I think that most cases can be clarified using MRI only.
This is probably also practiced in many countries. In most cases, however, a staging CT or PET/
CT is performed beforehand and when there is a questionable finding in the liver. The planned
dual use of MRI and CT will certainly not become established in routine clinical practice, but
will be reserved for individual cases.
The sample size estimation section is very confusing and certainly needs to be edited. The
formula cannot be read in its present form and the variables cannot be assigned. The only
question is whether this is actually needed at all.
What does the “Deceleration” section mean after the discussion?
All in all, there is still a lot that needs to be changed before the manuscript can be published.
assistant