Title: Assessing Clinical Trial Failure Risk Factors And Reasons In Gastric Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors intensively revised their manuscript.
As for the reason to discuss specific factors for gastric cancer, the addition of the description
about the method of their categorization, and the classification of good and bad reason, I satisfied
for their revisions.
In the previous review, I presumed the endpoint of their logistic analysis is good and bad reason
of terminating studies they included. But after the revision about the classification of good and
bad reason, the results of logistic regression models are exactly the same. The authors should
clarify the endpoint of their logistic analysis. Is the endpoint of their logistic analysis “trial
termination” regardless of the reason of terminating studies? Is it reasonable? And if so, as the
“trial termination” include the censored cases, I think Cox hazard model is appropriate for such
analysis.
As other reviewers pointed out, the paper could be improved with tighter structural and English
language editing. Part of mistakes about the spelling are revised but their manuscript still has
many mistakes about separation of words. Their manuscript should be edited by a native English
speaker.
Title: Assessing Clinical Trial Failure Risk Factors And Reasons In Gastric Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors intensively revised their manuscript.
As for the reason to discuss specific factors for gastric cancer, the addition of the description
about the method of their categorization, and the classification of good and bad reason, I satisfied
for their revisions.
In the previous review, I presumed the endpoint of their logistic analysis is good and bad reason
of terminating studies they included. But after the revision about the classification of good and
bad reason, the results of logistic regression models are exactly the same. The authors should
clarify the endpoint of their logistic analysis. Is the endpoint of their logistic analysis “trial
termination” regardless of the reason of terminating studies? Is it reasonable? And if so, as the
“trial termination” include the censored cases, I think Cox hazard model is appropriate for such
analysis.
As other reviewers pointed out, the paper could be improved with tighter structural and English
language editing. Part of mistakes about the spelling are revised but their manuscript still has
many mistakes about separation of words. Their manuscript should be edited by a native English
speaker.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Assessing Clinical Trial Failure Risk Factors And Reasons In Gastric Cancer
Version: 2 Date: 24 Sep 2022
Reviewer's report:
The authors intensively revised their manuscript.
As for the reason to discuss specific factors for gastric cancer, the addition of the description
about the method of their categorization, and the classification of good and bad reason, I satisfied
for their revisions.
In the previous review, I presumed the endpoint of their logistic analysis is good and bad reason
of terminating studies they included. But after the revision about the classification of good and
bad reason, the results of logistic regression models are exactly the same. The authors should
clarify the endpoint of their logistic analysis. Is the endpoint of their logistic analysis “trial
termination” regardless of the reason of terminating studies? Is it reasonable? And if so, as the
“trial termination” include the censored cases, I think Cox hazard model is appropriate for such
analysis.
As other reviewers pointed out, the paper could be improved with tighter structural and English
language editing. Part of mistakes about the spelling are revised but their manuscript still has
many mistakes about separation of words. Their manuscript should be edited by a native English
speaker.
assistant