Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The Prognostic Influence of Body Mass Index, Resting energy expenditure and Fasting  
Blood Glucose on Postoperative Patients with Esophageal Cancer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jul 2016  
 
Reviewer: Ho Fuang  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
A retrospective series of esophageal cancers treated at a single centre. The weakness is its 
retrospective nature, hence mostly hypothesis generating. The strength lies in the decent sample 
size. The discussion is reasonable.  
 
Couple of questions,  
1. Error in figure 1 (>=)  
2. All patients had signed informed consent, that's for surgery or for this study? One would 
assume at least some patients lost to follow up or died by the time analysis is made.  
3. Is there risk of over interpretation of data? 'Significan t' in node negative patients, not N+ 
patients, is this due to node positivity overwhelm other prognostic factors?  
4. The subgroup table looks over complicated, but breaking it down may lose data.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 spec ify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please compl ete 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 th is 
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 applyi ng 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 y es 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 publica tion, 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: The Prognostic Influence of Body Mass Index, Resting energy expenditure and Fasting  
Blood Glucose on Postoperative Patients with Esophageal Cancer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jul 2016  
 
Reviewer: Ho Fuang  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
A retrospective series of esophageal cancers treated at a single centre. The weakness is its 
retrospective nature, hence mostly hypothesis generating. The strength lies in the decent sample 
size. The discussion is reasonable.  
 
Couple of questions,  
1. Error in figure 1 (>=)  
2. All patients had signed informed consent, that's for surgery or for this study? One would 
assume at least some patients lost to follow up or died by the time analysis is made.  
3. Is there risk of over interpretation of data? 'Significan t' in node negative patients, not N+ 
patients, is this due to node positivity overwhelm other prognostic factors?  
4. The subgroup table looks over complicated, but breaking it down may lose data.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 spec ify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please compl ete 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 th is 
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 applyi ng 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 y es 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 publica tion, 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: The Prognostic Influence of Body Mass Index, Resting energy expenditure and Fasting  
Blood Glucose on Postoperative Patients with Esophageal Cancer  
 
Version: 0 Date: 06 Jul 2016  
 
Reviewer: Ho Fuang  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
A retrospective series of esophageal cancers treated at a single centre. The weakness is its 
retrospective nature, hence mostly hypothesis generating. The strength lies in the decent sample 
size. The discussion is reasonable.  
 
Couple of questions,  
1. Error in figure 1 (>=)  
2. All patients had signed informed consent, that's for surgery or for this study? One would 
assume at least some patients lost to follow up or died by the time analysis is made.  
3. Is there risk of over interpretation of data? 'Significan t' in node negative patients, not N+ 
patients, is this due to node positivity overwhelm other prognostic factors?  
4. The subgroup table looks over complicated, but breaking it down may lose data.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 spec ify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please compl ete 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 th is 
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 applyi ng 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 y es 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 publica tion, 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