Reviewer's report
Title:Radioactive I-131 induced hepatotoxicity
Version:4Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Hanna Dückers-Horst
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
thank you very much for submitting this interesting case report on drug-induced
liver injury due to administration of I-131 ablation therapy.
Major Compulsatory Revisions: none
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. It would be interesting to know which parameters of the RUCAM score were
particularly elevated in your patient. Please create a chart showing the score for
your patient displaying the result of 7 points (“probable DILI”).
2. You write the patient received a therapy with methylprednisolone 40 mg iv drip
qd * 14d after she was diagnosed with DILI. Is this the standard therapy for every
patient with DILI? Or does the therapy regime depend on the RUCAM Score?
The reader would be interested how you proceed in your institution.
3. Please provide a discussion section and shorten your conclusion which needs
to be presented in a more stringent form (actually the "conclusion" is the
“discussion”).
Minor issues not for publication:
There are some spelling mistakes as well as grammatical errors and irregular
expressions (e.g. "Background": Our case is particular all the more worthy of
attention because: 1., 2., 3. ... I-131 ablatioin [ablation] theraphy [therapy] could
present diffuse hepatic uptake; ... ; I131 induced DILI do [does] not response [to]
the basic hepatic protection); "Conclusion": ... sclerae (eyes), no edema, ascites
nor encephalopathy are [were] presented. ... The patient, [who] denied [denies]
history of liver disease, present [presents or presented] typical cholestatic
damage manifestation... As an additional remarks, it remind physicians make
DILI in early consideration when patient present liver injury after I-131 ablation
therapy.)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
My answer is "no" to all questions above.
Reviewer's report
Title:Radioactive I-131 induced hepatotoxicity
Version:4Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Hanna Dückers-Horst
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
thank you very much for submitting this interesting case report on drug-induced
liver injury due to administration of I-131 ablation therapy.
Major Compulsatory Revisions: none
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. It would be interesting to know which parameters of the RUCAM score were
particularly elevated in your patient. Please create a chart showing the score for
your patient displaying the result of 7 points (“probable DILI”).
2. You write the patient received a therapy with methylprednisolone 40 mg iv drip
qd * 14d after she was diagnosed with DILI. Is this the standard therapy for every
patient with DILI? Or does the therapy regime depend on the RUCAM Score?
The reader would be interested how you proceed in your institution.
3. Please provide a discussion section and shorten your conclusion which needs
to be presented in a more stringent form (actually the "conclusion" is the
“discussion”).
Minor issues not for publication:
There are some spelling mistakes as well as grammatical errors and irregular
expressions (e.g. "Background": Our case is particular all the more worthy of
attention because: 1., 2., 3. ... I-131 ablatioin [ablation] theraphy [therapy] could
present diffuse hepatic uptake; ... ; I131 induced DILI do [does] not response [to]
the basic hepatic protection); "Conclusion": ... sclerae (eyes), no edema, ascites
nor encephalopathy are [were] presented. ... The patient, [who] denied [denies]
history of liver disease, present [presents or presented] typical cholestatic
damage manifestation... As an additional remarks, it remind physicians make
DILI in early consideration when patient present liver injury after I-131 ablation
therapy.)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
My answer is "no" to all questions above.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Radioactive I-131 induced hepatotoxicity
Version:4Date:3 February 2015
Reviewer: Hanna Dückers-Horst
Reviewer's report:
Dear author,
thank you very much for submitting this interesting case report on drug-induced
liver injury due to administration of I-131 ablation therapy.
Major Compulsatory Revisions: none
Minor Essential Revisions:
1. It would be interesting to know which parameters of the RUCAM score were
particularly elevated in your patient. Please create a chart showing the score for
your patient displaying the result of 7 points (“probable DILI”).
2. You write the patient received a therapy with methylprednisolone 40 mg iv drip
qd * 14d after she was diagnosed with DILI. Is this the standard therapy for every
patient with DILI? Or does the therapy regime depend on the RUCAM Score?
The reader would be interested how you proceed in your institution.
3. Please provide a discussion section and shorten your conclusion which needs
to be presented in a more stringent form (actually the "conclusion" is the
“discussion”).
Minor issues not for publication:
There are some spelling mistakes as well as grammatical errors and irregular
expressions (e.g. "Background": Our case is particular all the more worthy of
attention because: 1., 2., 3. ... I-131 ablatioin [ablation] theraphy [therapy] could
present diffuse hepatic uptake; ... ; I131 induced DILI do [does] not response [to]
the basic hepatic protection); "Conclusion": ... sclerae (eyes), no edema, ascites
nor encephalopathy are [were] presented. ... The patient, [who] denied [denies]
history of liver disease, present [presents or presented] typical cholestatic
damage manifestation... As an additional remarks, it remind physicians make
DILI in early consideration when patient present liver injury after I-131 ablation
therapy.)
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
My answer is "no" to all questions above.
assistant