Title: Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence of gastric cancer by grade of
venous invasion
Version: 1 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors aim to evaluate the prognostic effect of the VI in gastric
cancer. They included 157 GC patients from databases of 17 years in single center. They clearly
showed VI as a significant negative prognostic factor in GC in univariate analysis. Because of
long time and different chemotherapy and surgical techniques, they failed to show predictive
feature of the VI but they stated this limitation in their manuscript properly.
Major findings of this article were that VI was clearly proved as negative prognostic factor; no
novel method was used. VI as a prognostic factor is well known information both in this and
other type of tumors. So, there is not much contribution to the field. I think this information
cannot be useful much for other researchers.
Title: Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence of gastric cancer by grade of
venous invasion
Version: 1 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors aim to evaluate the prognostic effect of the VI in gastric
cancer. They included 157 GC patients from databases of 17 years in single center. They clearly
showed VI as a significant negative prognostic factor in GC in univariate analysis. Because of
long time and different chemotherapy and surgical techniques, they failed to show predictive
feature of the VI but they stated this limitation in their manuscript properly.
Major findings of this article were that VI was clearly proved as negative prognostic factor; no
novel method was used. VI as a prognostic factor is well known information both in this and
other type of tumors. So, there is not much contribution to the field. I think this information
cannot be useful much for other researchers.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk stratification for predicting postoperative recurrence of gastric cancer by grade of
venous invasion
Version: 1 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Authors aim to evaluate the prognostic effect of the VI in gastric
cancer. They included 157 GC patients from databases of 17 years in single center. They clearly
showed VI as a significant negative prognostic factor in GC in univariate analysis. Because of
long time and different chemotherapy and surgical techniques, they failed to show predictive
feature of the VI but they stated this limitation in their manuscript properly.
Major findings of this article were that VI was clearly proved as negative prognostic factor; no
novel method was used. VI as a prognostic factor is well known information both in this and
other type of tumors. So, there is not much contribution to the field. I think this information
cannot be useful much for other researchers.
assistant