Title: Unraveling the Site-Specific Features in Small Intestinal Stromal Tumors: A
Retrospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall, while the study is descriptive, it examines a large number of small intestinal GIST
cases and provides valuable insights that could serve as a reference for clinical practice.
The manuscript is generally well-structured and informative. To further enhance clarity and
readability, I suggest considering the following revisions:
1. I noticed that the limitations of the study are explicitly mentioned within the results section
of the abstract. Typically, limitations are discussed in the "Discussion" section rather than the
abstract, as the abstract is intended to provide a concise summary of the study’s objectives,
methods, key findings, and conclusions. To improve readability and maintain the conventional
structure, I suggest either REMOVING THE MENTION of study limitations from the abstract
or rephrasing it more concisely. For example, instead of:
"These findings necessitate subsequent verification through prospective multicenter studies to
address the inherent limitations of the retrospective single-center design, particularly regarding
selection bias and generalizability constraints."
You could consider a more succinct statement, such as:
"These findings warrant further validation in prospective multicenter studies."
This adjustment would help maintain a clear and focused abstract while ensuring that the study's
limitations are appropriately addressed in the discussion section.
2. The authors state, "Therefore, the purpose of this study is to thoroughly elaborate the clinical
features and biological behavior of small intestinal GISTs at different sites, with the hope of
aiding the diagnosis and treatment of this unusual and less characterized disease." and "We
documented treatment options." However, while treatment options are described, there is no
analysis of survival outcomes. If feasible, I recommend adding an analysis of survival data to
strengthen the study's clinical relevance.
Title: Unraveling the Site-Specific Features in Small Intestinal Stromal Tumors: A
Retrospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall, while the study is descriptive, it examines a large number of small intestinal GIST
cases and provides valuable insights that could serve as a reference for clinical practice.
The manuscript is generally well-structured and informative. To further enhance clarity and
readability, I suggest considering the following revisions:
1. I noticed that the limitations of the study are explicitly mentioned within the results section
of the abstract. Typically, limitations are discussed in the "Discussion" section rather than the
abstract, as the abstract is intended to provide a concise summary of the study’s objectives,
methods, key findings, and conclusions. To improve readability and maintain the conventional
structure, I suggest either REMOVING THE MENTION of study limitations from the abstract
or rephrasing it more concisely. For example, instead of:
"These findings necessitate subsequent verification through prospective multicenter studies to
address the inherent limitations of the retrospective single-center design, particularly regarding
selection bias and generalizability constraints."
You could consider a more succinct statement, such as:
"These findings warrant further validation in prospective multicenter studies."
This adjustment would help maintain a clear and focused abstract while ensuring that the study's
limitations are appropriately addressed in the discussion section.
2. The authors state, "Therefore, the purpose of this study is to thoroughly elaborate the clinical
features and biological behavior of small intestinal GISTs at different sites, with the hope of
aiding the diagnosis and treatment of this unusual and less characterized disease." and "We
documented treatment options." However, while treatment options are described, there is no
analysis of survival outcomes. If feasible, I recommend adding an analysis of survival data to
strengthen the study's clinical relevance.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Unraveling the Site-Specific Features in Small Intestinal Stromal Tumors: A
Retrospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 06 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
Overall, while the study is descriptive, it examines a large number of small intestinal GIST
cases and provides valuable insights that could serve as a reference for clinical practice.
The manuscript is generally well-structured and informative. To further enhance clarity and
readability, I suggest considering the following revisions:
1. I noticed that the limitations of the study are explicitly mentioned within the results section
of the abstract. Typically, limitations are discussed in the "Discussion" section rather than the
abstract, as the abstract is intended to provide a concise summary of the study’s objectives,
methods, key findings, and conclusions. To improve readability and maintain the conventional
structure, I suggest either REMOVING THE MENTION of study limitations from the abstract
or rephrasing it more concisely. For example, instead of:
"These findings necessitate subsequent verification through prospective multicenter studies to
address the inherent limitations of the retrospective single-center design, particularly regarding
selection bias and generalizability constraints."
You could consider a more succinct statement, such as:
"These findings warrant further validation in prospective multicenter studies."
This adjustment would help maintain a clear and focused abstract while ensuring that the study's
limitations are appropriately addressed in the discussion section.
2. The authors state, "Therefore, the purpose of this study is to thoroughly elaborate the clinical
features and biological behavior of small intestinal GISTs at different sites, with the hope of
aiding the diagnosis and treatment of this unusual and less characterized disease." and "We
documented treatment options." However, while treatment options are described, there is no
analysis of survival outcomes. If feasible, I recommend adding an analysis of survival data to
strengthen the study's clinical relevance.
assistant