Reviewer’s report
Title: Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who underwent
D2 radical lymphadenectomy
Version: 0 Date: 27 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Abdullah Yeniova
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript titled " Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients
who  underwent  D2  radical  lymphadenectomy"  was  reviewed  according  to  the  journal  "BMC
Gastroenterology" policy. It contributed to the literature regarding the prognostic scoring systems for
gastric cancer survival. It can be publish with minor revision. The criticisim  regarding to manuscript
policy can be found below.
1)  Most  important  criticism  is  about  the  term  "nomogram".   Authors  should  explain  the  term
"nomogram" definitively. Because most of the readers will be clinician and I think information about
nomogram is insufficient. For example authors should explain how they score the index? Information
should understandable for readers who did not know advanced statistics. 
2) Background section of abstract is insufficient. Abstract is the most important part of the manuscript
so authors should include a sentence highlighted the aim of the study and why they do this study?
3) Tumor markers should be written as CA 15-3 and  CA 19-9.
4) I think the sentence " more and more studies" (page 4 and line 39-41) is exaggerative because there
are only there studies in references regarding this issue
5) Demographic data of patients should be given in "Result" section not in the Methods" section (page
5 line 27-32).
6) Predictive factors like tumor stage, tumor location, tumor size, pathological type, vascular invasion,
nerve  invasion,  Borrmann  classification,  the  number  of  lymph  node  metastases  are  well  known
predictive  factors  but  there  is  little  data  about  the  factors  like  hemoglobin  [Hb],  platelet  count,
neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, serum albumin, body mass index,
celiac artery variations. Authors should explain why they include these factors and give reference.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interest
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’s report
Title: Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who underwent
D2 radical lymphadenectomy
Version: 0 Date: 27 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Abdullah Yeniova
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript titled " Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients
who  underwent  D2  radical  lymphadenectomy"  was  reviewed  according  to  the  journal  "BMC
Gastroenterology" policy. It contributed to the literature regarding the prognostic scoring systems for
gastric cancer survival. It can be publish with minor revision. The criticisim  regarding to manuscript
policy can be found below.
1)  Most  important  criticism  is  about  the  term  "nomogram".   Authors  should  explain  the  term
"nomogram" definitively. Because most of the readers will be clinician and I think information about
nomogram is insufficient. For example authors should explain how they score the index? Information
should understandable for readers who did not know advanced statistics. 
2) Background section of abstract is insufficient. Abstract is the most important part of the manuscript
so authors should include a sentence highlighted the aim of the study and why they do this study?
3) Tumor markers should be written as CA 15-3 and  CA 19-9.
4) I think the sentence " more and more studies" (page 4 and line 39-41) is exaggerative because there
are only there studies in references regarding this issue
5) Demographic data of patients should be given in "Result" section not in the Methods" section (page
5 line 27-32).
6) Predictive factors like tumor stage, tumor location, tumor size, pathological type, vascular invasion,
nerve  invasion,  Borrmann  classification,  the  number  of  lymph  node  metastases  are  well  known
predictive  factors  but  there  is  little  data  about  the  factors  like  hemoglobin  [Hb],  platelet  count,
neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, serum albumin, body mass index,
celiac artery variations. Authors should explain why they include these factors and give reference.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interest
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report
Title: Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients who underwent
D2 radical lymphadenectomy
Version: 0 Date: 27 Jul 2019
Reviewer: Abdullah Yeniova
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript titled " Application value of nomogram and prognostic factors of gastric cancer patients
who  underwent  D2  radical  lymphadenectomy"  was  reviewed  according  to  the  journal  "BMC
Gastroenterology" policy. It contributed to the literature regarding the prognostic scoring systems for
gastric cancer survival. It can be publish with minor revision. The criticisim  regarding to manuscript
policy can be found below.
1)  Most  important  criticism  is  about  the  term  "nomogram".   Authors  should  explain  the  term
"nomogram" definitively. Because most of the readers will be clinician and I think information about
nomogram is insufficient. For example authors should explain how they score the index? Information
should understandable for readers who did not know advanced statistics. 
2) Background section of abstract is insufficient. Abstract is the most important part of the manuscript
so authors should include a sentence highlighted the aim of the study and why they do this study?
3) Tumor markers should be written as CA 15-3 and  CA 19-9.
4) I think the sentence " more and more studies" (page 4 and line 39-41) is exaggerative because there
are only there studies in references regarding this issue
5) Demographic data of patients should be given in "Result" section not in the Methods" section (page
5 line 27-32).
6) Predictive factors like tumor stage, tumor location, tumor size, pathological type, vascular invasion,
nerve  invasion,  Borrmann  classification,  the  number  of  lymph  node  metastases  are  well  known
predictive  factors  but  there  is  little  data  about  the  factors  like  hemoglobin  [Hb],  platelet  count,
neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, serum albumin, body mass index,
celiac artery variations. Authors should explain why they include these factors and give reference.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical review
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interest
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant