Reviewer's report
Title:Lymphatic marker podoplanin/D2-40 in human advanced cirrhotic liver-
Reevaluations of microlymphatic abnormalities
Version: 1Date:15 September 2010
Reviewer: sinan akay
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes.
3. Are the data sound? Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes.
Although there was no proliferation marker investigated in the article, the word
“proliferation” is used for lymphatic endothelial cells.
Advice on publication: Although the article includes patients with cirrhosis, results
of the study are descriptive and may be it will be more convenient to publish this
article in a preclinical journal. The discussion of the article does not contain any
discussion about the formation or reabsorption of ascites.
Reviewer's report
Title:Lymphatic marker podoplanin/D2-40 in human advanced cirrhotic liver-
Reevaluations of microlymphatic abnormalities
Version: 1Date:15 September 2010
Reviewer: sinan akay
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes.
3. Are the data sound? Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes.
Although there was no proliferation marker investigated in the article, the word
“proliferation” is used for lymphatic endothelial cells.
Advice on publication: Although the article includes patients with cirrhosis, results
of the study are descriptive and may be it will be more convenient to publish this
article in a preclinical journal. The discussion of the article does not contain any
discussion about the formation or reabsorption of ascites.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Lymphatic marker podoplanin/D2-40 in human advanced cirrhotic liver-
Reevaluations of microlymphatic abnormalities
Version: 1Date:15 September 2010
Reviewer: sinan akay
Reviewer's report:
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined? Yes.
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described? Yes.
3. Are the data sound? Yes.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition? Yes.
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data? Yes.
6. Are limitations of the work clearly stated? Yes.
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished? Yes.
8. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found? Yes.
9. Is the writing acceptable? Yes.
Although there was no proliferation marker investigated in the article, the word
“proliferation” is used for lymphatic endothelial cells.
Advice on publication: Although the article includes patients with cirrhosis, results
of the study are descriptive and may be it will be more convenient to publish this
article in a preclinical journal. The discussion of the article does not contain any
discussion about the formation or reabsorption of ascites.
assistant