Title: Current status of and barriers to the treatment of advanced-stage liver cancer in China: A
questionnaire-based study from the perspective of doctors
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. The authors have
addressed the majority of our prior comments. The methods and discussion sections have been
significantly improved. However, additional suggestions are as below:
Overall – there are several areas in the manuscript where verb-tense agreements and grammar
could be improved. Would suggest reviewing this more closely to improve the manuscript text
and readability.
Abstract – lines 35-36, 38: It is not clear what the difference is between “doctors’ professional
ranks” and “hospital levels of the doctors” would be to an international reader. Please clarify
or revise the terms accordingly. I would also suggest using the term “hospital level” throughout
the manuscript for simplification.
Methods – This section has been much improved. Thank you for including information on
economic regions, hospital levels, and professional rank. I wonder if a figure can be included,
particularly for hospital levels (by level and class) so it is easier to digest the information as an
international reader.
Methods – In line 110 – please revise the line that says “while the majority of the West is the most
backward”. The term backward seems out of place in this sentence. In line 150 – please revise.
I think you mean you excluded questionnaires that took more than 10 minutes to complete…
As written, it is difficult to understand.
Line 198: Please remove the “, etc”. The next sentence also appears to be incomplete.
Line 202: Would revise “less” to “fewer”.
Line 209: Please provide statistics to support the preference for sorafenib. I’m not sure if the
question asked if the provider preferred lenvatinib over sorafenib (if so, would recommend
moving the line about sorafeneib earlier in the sentence) or if these were 2 separate questions.
Line 246: Please remove the “, etc”.
Line 311: Would recommend choosing a different word than “pessimistic”. I think the authors
may mean dissatisfaction.
Line 313: Please revise this sentence. I think the authors mean “doctors who reported a high
percentage of patients with advanced-stage liver cancer were more likely to have negative
attitudes towards current treatment options for liver cancer” or something similar.
Line 342: Please revise to “advanced stage liver cancer”. In general, please clarify that advanced
stage refers to liver cancer (and for example, not liver disease) throughout the manuscript.
Line 378: Please remove the term “qualified” before questionnaire.
Line 379: Perhaps using the term “differences” can be used instead of “imbalance”.
Line 459: Please revise this sentence. I don’t think you mean that doctors were less likely to
be satisfied with your research. Perhaps replace the phrase “in our research” at the end of the
sentence.
Title: Current status of and barriers to the treatment of advanced-stage liver cancer in China: A
questionnaire-based study from the perspective of doctors
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. The authors have
addressed the majority of our prior comments. The methods and discussion sections have been
significantly improved. However, additional suggestions are as below:
Overall – there are several areas in the manuscript where verb-tense agreements and grammar
could be improved. Would suggest reviewing this more closely to improve the manuscript text
and readability.
Abstract – lines 35-36, 38: It is not clear what the difference is between “doctors’ professional
ranks” and “hospital levels of the doctors” would be to an international reader. Please clarify
or revise the terms accordingly. I would also suggest using the term “hospital level” throughout
the manuscript for simplification.
Methods – This section has been much improved. Thank you for including information on
economic regions, hospital levels, and professional rank. I wonder if a figure can be included,
particularly for hospital levels (by level and class) so it is easier to digest the information as an
international reader.
Methods – In line 110 – please revise the line that says “while the majority of the West is the most
backward”. The term backward seems out of place in this sentence. In line 150 – please revise.
I think you mean you excluded questionnaires that took more than 10 minutes to complete…
As written, it is difficult to understand.
Line 198: Please remove the “, etc”. The next sentence also appears to be incomplete.
Line 202: Would revise “less” to “fewer”.
Line 209: Please provide statistics to support the preference for sorafenib. I’m not sure if the
question asked if the provider preferred lenvatinib over sorafenib (if so, would recommend
moving the line about sorafeneib earlier in the sentence) or if these were 2 separate questions.
Line 246: Please remove the “, etc”.
Line 311: Would recommend choosing a different word than “pessimistic”. I think the authors
may mean dissatisfaction.
Line 313: Please revise this sentence. I think the authors mean “doctors who reported a high
percentage of patients with advanced-stage liver cancer were more likely to have negative
attitudes towards current treatment options for liver cancer” or something similar.
Line 342: Please revise to “advanced stage liver cancer”. In general, please clarify that advanced
stage refers to liver cancer (and for example, not liver disease) throughout the manuscript.
Line 378: Please remove the term “qualified” before questionnaire.
Line 379: Perhaps using the term “differences” can be used instead of “imbalance”.
Line 459: Please revise this sentence. I don’t think you mean that doctors were less likely to
be satisfied with your research. Perhaps replace the phrase “in our research” at the end of the
sentence.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Current status of and barriers to the treatment of advanced-stage liver cancer in China: A
questionnaire-based study from the perspective of doctors
Version: 2 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. The authors have
addressed the majority of our prior comments. The methods and discussion sections have been
significantly improved. However, additional suggestions are as below:
Overall – there are several areas in the manuscript where verb-tense agreements and grammar
could be improved. Would suggest reviewing this more closely to improve the manuscript text
and readability.
Abstract – lines 35-36, 38: It is not clear what the difference is between “doctors’ professional
ranks” and “hospital levels of the doctors” would be to an international reader. Please clarify
or revise the terms accordingly. I would also suggest using the term “hospital level” throughout
the manuscript for simplification.
Methods – This section has been much improved. Thank you for including information on
economic regions, hospital levels, and professional rank. I wonder if a figure can be included,
particularly for hospital levels (by level and class) so it is easier to digest the information as an
international reader.
Methods – In line 110 – please revise the line that says “while the majority of the West is the most
backward”. The term backward seems out of place in this sentence. In line 150 – please revise.
I think you mean you excluded questionnaires that took more than 10 minutes to complete…
As written, it is difficult to understand.
Line 198: Please remove the “, etc”. The next sentence also appears to be incomplete.
Line 202: Would revise “less” to “fewer”.
Line 209: Please provide statistics to support the preference for sorafenib. I’m not sure if the
question asked if the provider preferred lenvatinib over sorafenib (if so, would recommend
moving the line about sorafeneib earlier in the sentence) or if these were 2 separate questions.
Line 246: Please remove the “, etc”.
Line 311: Would recommend choosing a different word than “pessimistic”. I think the authors
may mean dissatisfaction.
Line 313: Please revise this sentence. I think the authors mean “doctors who reported a high
percentage of patients with advanced-stage liver cancer were more likely to have negative
attitudes towards current treatment options for liver cancer” or something similar.
Line 342: Please revise to “advanced stage liver cancer”. In general, please clarify that advanced
stage refers to liver cancer (and for example, not liver disease) throughout the manuscript.
Line 378: Please remove the term “qualified” before questionnaire.
Line 379: Perhaps using the term “differences” can be used instead of “imbalance”.
Line 459: Please revise this sentence. I don’t think you mean that doctors were less likely to
be satisfied with your research. Perhaps replace the phrase “in our research” at the end of the
sentence.
assistant