Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 9 Date: 01 May 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?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
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: This seems to be a paper describing the protocol of an ongoing study.
Limited data are presented. The authors could better explain the objective of the study since no
hypothesis testing seems proposed.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 1: As this is a paper describing a protocol, it would be useful for the reviewers to see
the actual approved protocol.
Comment 2: The objective of the study could be clarified. While the primary endpoints are nicely
defined, it is unclear what the overall purpose of the study is, and how the trial will answer the
primary objective.
Comment 3: Related to the objective, the criteria for study success is unclear.
Comment 4: The authors mention that only descriptive statistics will be presented. The
investigators could clarify how rates and patient interview time will be reported. For example, the
investigators could clarify whether means or proportions will be reported. The term “descriptive
statistic” is a bit vague.
Comment 5: The investigators could clarify that no hypothesis testing or p-values will be
reported. While it is acknowledged that the investigators do not seem to allow for hypothesis
testing (i.e., p-values), they may want to make some comparisons among the collected variables
after the study completes in 2027. The investigators could optionally consider whether they have
restricted themselves from some interesting secondary analyses when the study completes.
Comment 6: The tables in the additional file could use more interpretation. In Table 1,
intervention and control columns are mentioned. The reason for the two columns could be better
explained. In tables 2 and 3, there are multiple columns with “/” that are not defined. It is unclear
what those columns are for.
Comment 7: There seem to be inconsistencies in the JRCT record. For example, the inclusion
criteria state age>18 years old as eligible, but the exclusion criteria state that there is no minimum
age.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 9 Date: 01 May 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?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
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: This seems to be a paper describing the protocol of an ongoing study.
Limited data are presented. The authors could better explain the objective of the study since no
hypothesis testing seems proposed.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 1: As this is a paper describing a protocol, it would be useful for the reviewers to see
the actual approved protocol.
Comment 2: The objective of the study could be clarified. While the primary endpoints are nicely
defined, it is unclear what the overall purpose of the study is, and how the trial will answer the
primary objective.
Comment 3: Related to the objective, the criteria for study success is unclear.
Comment 4: The authors mention that only descriptive statistics will be presented. The
investigators could clarify how rates and patient interview time will be reported. For example, the
investigators could clarify whether means or proportions will be reported. The term “descriptive
statistic” is a bit vague.
Comment 5: The investigators could clarify that no hypothesis testing or p-values will be
reported. While it is acknowledged that the investigators do not seem to allow for hypothesis
testing (i.e., p-values), they may want to make some comparisons among the collected variables
after the study completes in 2027. The investigators could optionally consider whether they have
restricted themselves from some interesting secondary analyses when the study completes.
Comment 6: The tables in the additional file could use more interpretation. In Table 1,
intervention and control columns are mentioned. The reason for the two columns could be better
explained. In tables 2 and 3, there are multiple columns with “/” that are not defined. It is unclear
what those columns are for.
Comment 7: There seem to be inconsistencies in the JRCT record. For example, the inclusion
criteria state age>18 years old as eligible, but the exclusion criteria state that there is no minimum
age.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 9 Date: 01 May 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?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
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: This seems to be a paper describing the protocol of an ongoing study.
Limited data are presented. The authors could better explain the objective of the study since no
hypothesis testing seems proposed.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 1: As this is a paper describing a protocol, it would be useful for the reviewers to see
the actual approved protocol.
Comment 2: The objective of the study could be clarified. While the primary endpoints are nicely
defined, it is unclear what the overall purpose of the study is, and how the trial will answer the
primary objective.
Comment 3: Related to the objective, the criteria for study success is unclear.
Comment 4: The authors mention that only descriptive statistics will be presented. The
investigators could clarify how rates and patient interview time will be reported. For example, the
investigators could clarify whether means or proportions will be reported. The term “descriptive
statistic” is a bit vague.
Comment 5: The investigators could clarify that no hypothesis testing or p-values will be
reported. While it is acknowledged that the investigators do not seem to allow for hypothesis
testing (i.e., p-values), they may want to make some comparisons among the collected variables
after the study completes in 2027. The investigators could optionally consider whether they have
restricted themselves from some interesting secondary analyses when the study completes.
Comment 6: The tables in the additional file could use more interpretation. In Table 1,
intervention and control columns are mentioned. The reason for the two columns could be better
explained. In tables 2 and 3, there are multiple columns with “/” that are not defined. It is unclear
what those columns are for.
Comment 7: There seem to be inconsistencies in the JRCT record. For example, the inclusion
criteria state age>18 years old as eligible, but the exclusion criteria state that there is no minimum
age.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
assistant