Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 2 Date: 18 Feb 2024
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?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This meta-analysis is interesting and addresses a relevant topic
for the treatment of patients with liver cancer. However, there are several concerns regarding
methodology and interpretation of results, as well as sample size.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
First, authors should update the literature search since it was performed up to April 9, 2022,
and several papers could have been published in almost two years. Regarding statistics, it is
not recommended to perform a fixed-effects model or random-effects model depending on
heterogeneity results. With such a low sample size, a random-effects model should be used in all
comparisons. It is also surprising, according to Table 1, that follow-up (months) is only available
for one study, so it is unclear how the hazard ratio was available. In addition to this, the number
of events and definitions of outcomes should be clearly defined and detailed for each article to
check figures and to assess comparability. Publication bias analysis through a funnel plot is not
reliable with such a low number of studies. Small sample size is a major limitation of this study.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
English language should be clearly revised since there are frequent typos and errors (such as,
reginal instead of regional)
Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 2 Date: 18 Feb 2024
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?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This meta-analysis is interesting and addresses a relevant topic
for the treatment of patients with liver cancer. However, there are several concerns regarding
methodology and interpretation of results, as well as sample size.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
First, authors should update the literature search since it was performed up to April 9, 2022,
and several papers could have been published in almost two years. Regarding statistics, it is
not recommended to perform a fixed-effects model or random-effects model depending on
heterogeneity results. With such a low sample size, a random-effects model should be used in all
comparisons. It is also surprising, according to Table 1, that follow-up (months) is only available
for one study, so it is unclear how the hazard ratio was available. In addition to this, the number
of events and definitions of outcomes should be clearly defined and detailed for each article to
check figures and to assess comparability. Publication bias analysis through a funnel plot is not
reliable with such a low number of studies. Small sample size is a major limitation of this study.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
English language should be clearly revised since there are frequent typos and errors (such as,
reginal instead of regional)
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 2 Date: 18 Feb 2024
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?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: This meta-analysis is interesting and addresses a relevant topic
for the treatment of patients with liver cancer. However, there are several concerns regarding
methodology and interpretation of results, as well as sample size.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
First, authors should update the literature search since it was performed up to April 9, 2022,
and several papers could have been published in almost two years. Regarding statistics, it is
not recommended to perform a fixed-effects model or random-effects model depending on
heterogeneity results. With such a low sample size, a random-effects model should be used in all
comparisons. It is also surprising, according to Table 1, that follow-up (months) is only available
for one study, so it is unclear how the hazard ratio was available. In addition to this, the number
of events and definitions of outcomes should be clearly defined and detailed for each article to
check figures and to assess comparability. Publication bias analysis through a funnel plot is not
reliable with such a low number of studies. Small sample size is a major limitation of this study.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
English language should be clearly revised since there are frequent typos and errors (such as,
reginal instead of regional)
assistant