Title: Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric
cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Ashish Chauhan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript (except for discussion) on a clinically pertinent research
question. I have a few observations on this manuscript:
1. Please mention the study design in the abstract whether it was a prospective or a retrospective
design. In the methods section, it appears like a retrospective design. Please mention that in
methods too. This is one of the most critical limitations of this study.
2. This study excluded patients with NCPF and EHPVO. It is advisable to include in the title
that it compared two treatments in cirrhosis patients.
3. As the decision of EVO or RTO was based on clinician discretion, it's likely that sicker patients
were not taken for RTO (Was TIPS considered in any of the patients). This is evident from
higher MELD in the EVO group. Please include a relevant statement in the limitations.
4. Significantly more patients in RTO group were on beta-blockers. Beta-blockers are known to
have beneficial effects on bacterial translocation and portal hypertension and have been shown
to have survival benefits. This variable may have impacted results and should be included in
the limitations.
5. Discussion is too bulky and needs to be rewritten. There is no need t repeat findings of the
results (paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the discussion). 1st para is well written summarizing what the
authors found. In 2 nd para authors should include the para where authors compared various
studies and thereafter the para giving explanation/hypothesis for these findings and in the end
strengths and limitations. The authors have repeated the entire results section in the discussion.
6. The only major weak point in this manuscript is discussion, where there is incoherence and
a lack of flow and structure. Please work on it.
7.  Kindly provide a consort diagram of inclusions and exclusions. Please do mention if any
patient underwent TIPS. If possible do mention the most common cause for clinicians to choose
EVO over RTO, or RTO over EVO.
Title: Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric
cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Ashish Chauhan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript (except for discussion) on a clinically pertinent research
question. I have a few observations on this manuscript:
1. Please mention the study design in the abstract whether it was a prospective or a retrospective
design. In the methods section, it appears like a retrospective design. Please mention that in
methods too. This is one of the most critical limitations of this study.
2. This study excluded patients with NCPF and EHPVO. It is advisable to include in the title
that it compared two treatments in cirrhosis patients.
3. As the decision of EVO or RTO was based on clinician discretion, it's likely that sicker patients
were not taken for RTO (Was TIPS considered in any of the patients). This is evident from
higher MELD in the EVO group. Please include a relevant statement in the limitations.
4. Significantly more patients in RTO group were on beta-blockers. Beta-blockers are known to
have beneficial effects on bacterial translocation and portal hypertension and have been shown
to have survival benefits. This variable may have impacted results and should be included in
the limitations.
5. Discussion is too bulky and needs to be rewritten. There is no need t repeat findings of the
results (paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the discussion). 1st para is well written summarizing what the
authors found. In 2 nd para authors should include the para where authors compared various
studies and thereafter the para giving explanation/hypothesis for these findings and in the end
strengths and limitations. The authors have repeated the entire results section in the discussion.
6. The only major weak point in this manuscript is discussion, where there is incoherence and
a lack of flow and structure. Please work on it.
7.  Kindly provide a consort diagram of inclusions and exclusions. Please do mention if any
patient underwent TIPS. If possible do mention the most common cause for clinicians to choose
EVO over RTO, or RTO over EVO.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoscopic variceal obturation and retrograde transvenous obliteration for acute gastric
cardiofundal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis
Version: 3 Date: 04 Jun 2022
Reviewer:  Ashish Chauhan
Reviewer's report:
This is a well-written manuscript (except for discussion) on a clinically pertinent research
question. I have a few observations on this manuscript:
1. Please mention the study design in the abstract whether it was a prospective or a retrospective
design. In the methods section, it appears like a retrospective design. Please mention that in
methods too. This is one of the most critical limitations of this study.
2. This study excluded patients with NCPF and EHPVO. It is advisable to include in the title
that it compared two treatments in cirrhosis patients.
3. As the decision of EVO or RTO was based on clinician discretion, it's likely that sicker patients
were not taken for RTO (Was TIPS considered in any of the patients). This is evident from
higher MELD in the EVO group. Please include a relevant statement in the limitations.
4. Significantly more patients in RTO group were on beta-blockers. Beta-blockers are known to
have beneficial effects on bacterial translocation and portal hypertension and have been shown
to have survival benefits. This variable may have impacted results and should be included in
the limitations.
5. Discussion is too bulky and needs to be rewritten. There is no need t repeat findings of the
results (paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the discussion). 1st para is well written summarizing what the
authors found. In 2 nd para authors should include the para where authors compared various
studies and thereafter the para giving explanation/hypothesis for these findings and in the end
strengths and limitations. The authors have repeated the entire results section in the discussion.
6. The only major weak point in this manuscript is discussion, where there is incoherence and
a lack of flow and structure. Please work on it.
7.  Kindly provide a consort diagram of inclusions and exclusions. Please do mention if any
patient underwent TIPS. If possible do mention the most common cause for clinicians to choose
EVO over RTO, or RTO over EVO.
assistant