Title: A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver
biopsy
Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
For Authors
Thank you for allowing me to re-review Manuscript entitled "A cost-effective measure to
prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy"
My observations were:
Q1: Authors should enter page number to facilitate review.
A1: The authors did not include the page number in the article.
In Materials and Methods,
Q2: Line 5: The authors do not explain how the patients were randomized. They should explain
the technique used to divide the patients into two groups.
A2: The authors responded
Line 4: "Participants were randomly assigned to either the observation or control group using a
computer-generated randomisation sequence."
Q3: The authors report the inclusion criteria, but not the exclusion criteria. Please explain the
exclusion criteria.
A3: The authors have entered the exclusion criteria after inclusion criteria.
In Results:
Q4: Line 3: The authors report "The mean time required for hemostasis was 0.4 ± 0.2 minutes.
But this value was only for the observation group. Please enter the value for the control group.
A4: The authors responded
Line 4:  "and 5.3±1.7 minutes in the control group".
In Discussion:
Q5: Line 15: The authors report "The incidence of bleeding complications in the control group
was 22.1%".
In the background report "The risk of bleeding after liver biopsy was 10.9%, which could lead
to patient death [9]. "
The authors should explain why the reported value is almost double.
A5: The authors responded
Line 19: " Additionally, the use of real-time Doppler ultrasound likely increased the detection
of subclinical bleeding events that might otherwise go unnoticed in studies relying solely on
clinical symptoms. "
In References:
Q6: Authors should review the "Instructions to Authors" on the journal website for reviewing
references (Example reference style: Article within a journal: Smith JJ. The
world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.)
A6: The authors have modified the references.
For me the article now is acceptable for publication.
Title: A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver
biopsy
Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
For Authors
Thank you for allowing me to re-review Manuscript entitled "A cost-effective measure to
prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy"
My observations were:
Q1: Authors should enter page number to facilitate review.
A1: The authors did not include the page number in the article.
In Materials and Methods,
Q2: Line 5: The authors do not explain how the patients were randomized. They should explain
the technique used to divide the patients into two groups.
A2: The authors responded
Line 4: "Participants were randomly assigned to either the observation or control group using a
computer-generated randomisation sequence."
Q3: The authors report the inclusion criteria, but not the exclusion criteria. Please explain the
exclusion criteria.
A3: The authors have entered the exclusion criteria after inclusion criteria.
In Results:
Q4: Line 3: The authors report "The mean time required for hemostasis was 0.4 ± 0.2 minutes.
But this value was only for the observation group. Please enter the value for the control group.
A4: The authors responded
Line 4:  "and 5.3±1.7 minutes in the control group".
In Discussion:
Q5: Line 15: The authors report "The incidence of bleeding complications in the control group
was 22.1%".
In the background report "The risk of bleeding after liver biopsy was 10.9%, which could lead
to patient death [9]. "
The authors should explain why the reported value is almost double.
A5: The authors responded
Line 19: " Additionally, the use of real-time Doppler ultrasound likely increased the detection
of subclinical bleeding events that might otherwise go unnoticed in studies relying solely on
clinical symptoms. "
In References:
Q6: Authors should review the "Instructions to Authors" on the journal website for reviewing
references (Example reference style: Article within a journal: Smith JJ. The
world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.)
A6: The authors have modified the references.
For me the article now is acceptable for publication.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver
biopsy
Version: 1 Date: 18 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
For Authors
Thank you for allowing me to re-review Manuscript entitled "A cost-effective measure to
prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy"
My observations were:
Q1: Authors should enter page number to facilitate review.
A1: The authors did not include the page number in the article.
In Materials and Methods,
Q2: Line 5: The authors do not explain how the patients were randomized. They should explain
the technique used to divide the patients into two groups.
A2: The authors responded
Line 4: "Participants were randomly assigned to either the observation or control group using a
computer-generated randomisation sequence."
Q3: The authors report the inclusion criteria, but not the exclusion criteria. Please explain the
exclusion criteria.
A3: The authors have entered the exclusion criteria after inclusion criteria.
In Results:
Q4: Line 3: The authors report "The mean time required for hemostasis was 0.4 ± 0.2 minutes.
But this value was only for the observation group. Please enter the value for the control group.
A4: The authors responded
Line 4:  "and 5.3±1.7 minutes in the control group".
In Discussion:
Q5: Line 15: The authors report "The incidence of bleeding complications in the control group
was 22.1%".
In the background report "The risk of bleeding after liver biopsy was 10.9%, which could lead
to patient death [9]. "
The authors should explain why the reported value is almost double.
A5: The authors responded
Line 19: " Additionally, the use of real-time Doppler ultrasound likely increased the detection
of subclinical bleeding events that might otherwise go unnoticed in studies relying solely on
clinical symptoms. "
In References:
Q6: Authors should review the "Instructions to Authors" on the journal website for reviewing
references (Example reference style: Article within a journal: Smith JJ. The
world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.)
A6: The authors have modified the references.
For me the article now is acceptable for publication.
assistant