Title: Quantitative splenic embolization possible-Application of 8Spheres conformal
microspheres in partial splenic embolization(PSE)
Version: 0 Date: 20 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
My congratulations to the authors for their interesting article.
It may be reconsidered for publication after the authors revise the following aspects:
1 - Hypersplenism is not secondary splenomegaly and both different diseases cannot be
considered together.
2 - Authors put together true hypersplenism due to an unknown disease of the spleen, which
destroy the blood elements, with congestive splenomegaly due to portal obstruction, which
prserve the blood elements and release them to the blood flow if necessary.
3 - It is not correct to write secondary hypersplenism, considering this is by definition a primary
hematologic uncknown disease.
4 - Leukopenia and thrombocytopenia due to congesstive splenomegaly is not a problem because
if the patient requires the blood elements the spleen release them. Therefore a leukopenia as
small as 800  leukocytes rise to 12,000 in presence of an appendicitis, for example. No patients
with less than 50,000 platelets present cloat disorder in presence of congestive splenomegaly.
Otherwise, in presence of hypersplenism, the patient present hemorrhages with 100,000 platelets
and the 7,000 leukocytes do not rise in presence of severe infection.
5 - Patients wihich were not included cannot be excluded.
6 - The results must be completely rewritten. Data from tables must be removed from the text.
The authors must write only relevant informations of tables in the text without repeating tables.
7 - The number of blood elements is not the most important, but the efficacy of those elements.
8 - The authors should not repeat method and results in discussion, but only make comments
about what is relevant.
9 - Red and white pulps are not the only zones of the spleen.
10 The authors repeat the same data in tables, results and discussion. It does not make any sense.
11 - Conclusion is a poor summary of method and results without any conclusion.
I suggest the authors to study hypersplenism and to look for a researcher to teach them how to
write a scientific paper.
Title: Quantitative splenic embolization possible-Application of 8Spheres conformal
microspheres in partial splenic embolization(PSE)
Version: 0 Date: 20 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
My congratulations to the authors for their interesting article.
It may be reconsidered for publication after the authors revise the following aspects:
1 - Hypersplenism is not secondary splenomegaly and both different diseases cannot be
considered together.
2 - Authors put together true hypersplenism due to an unknown disease of the spleen, which
destroy the blood elements, with congestive splenomegaly due to portal obstruction, which
prserve the blood elements and release them to the blood flow if necessary.
3 - It is not correct to write secondary hypersplenism, considering this is by definition a primary
hematologic uncknown disease.
4 - Leukopenia and thrombocytopenia due to congesstive splenomegaly is not a problem because
if the patient requires the blood elements the spleen release them. Therefore a leukopenia as
small as 800  leukocytes rise to 12,000 in presence of an appendicitis, for example. No patients
with less than 50,000 platelets present cloat disorder in presence of congestive splenomegaly.
Otherwise, in presence of hypersplenism, the patient present hemorrhages with 100,000 platelets
and the 7,000 leukocytes do not rise in presence of severe infection.
5 - Patients wihich were not included cannot be excluded.
6 - The results must be completely rewritten. Data from tables must be removed from the text.
The authors must write only relevant informations of tables in the text without repeating tables.
7 - The number of blood elements is not the most important, but the efficacy of those elements.
8 - The authors should not repeat method and results in discussion, but only make comments
about what is relevant.
9 - Red and white pulps are not the only zones of the spleen.
10 The authors repeat the same data in tables, results and discussion. It does not make any sense.
11 - Conclusion is a poor summary of method and results without any conclusion.
I suggest the authors to study hypersplenism and to look for a researcher to teach them how to
write a scientific paper.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Quantitative splenic embolization possible-Application of 8Spheres conformal
microspheres in partial splenic embolization(PSE)
Version: 0 Date: 20 Sep 2021
Reviewer's report:
My congratulations to the authors for their interesting article.
It may be reconsidered for publication after the authors revise the following aspects:
1 - Hypersplenism is not secondary splenomegaly and both different diseases cannot be
considered together.
2 - Authors put together true hypersplenism due to an unknown disease of the spleen, which
destroy the blood elements, with congestive splenomegaly due to portal obstruction, which
prserve the blood elements and release them to the blood flow if necessary.
3 - It is not correct to write secondary hypersplenism, considering this is by definition a primary
hematologic uncknown disease.
4 - Leukopenia and thrombocytopenia due to congesstive splenomegaly is not a problem because
if the patient requires the blood elements the spleen release them. Therefore a leukopenia as
small as 800  leukocytes rise to 12,000 in presence of an appendicitis, for example. No patients
with less than 50,000 platelets present cloat disorder in presence of congestive splenomegaly.
Otherwise, in presence of hypersplenism, the patient present hemorrhages with 100,000 platelets
and the 7,000 leukocytes do not rise in presence of severe infection.
5 - Patients wihich were not included cannot be excluded.
6 - The results must be completely rewritten. Data from tables must be removed from the text.
The authors must write only relevant informations of tables in the text without repeating tables.
7 - The number of blood elements is not the most important, but the efficacy of those elements.
8 - The authors should not repeat method and results in discussion, but only make comments
about what is relevant.
9 - Red and white pulps are not the only zones of the spleen.
10 The authors repeat the same data in tables, results and discussion. It does not make any sense.
11 - Conclusion is a poor summary of method and results without any conclusion.
I suggest the authors to study hypersplenism and to look for a researcher to teach them how to
write a scientific paper.
assistant