Reviewer's report
Title:A Prospective Experimental study of liver fibrosis with ultrasound and Its
Correlation with hepatic reserve function and hemodynamics
Version: 1Date:11 April 2012
Reviewer: Nigel Bird
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
(1) This is an interesting paper but contains some major issues that require
resolution before it is acceptable for publication.
(1) the scoring system categorises fibrosis into 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 but the authors
report only mild moderate and severe. There is no explanation for combining
categories 1 and 2; it is essential that this be justified.
(2) it is generally recognised that two independent, expert histopathologists score
the fibrosis separately and blinded to the origins of the samples and then reach
consensus on different scoring. Inter and intra-observer variability is too great to
ignore this. See Standish et al. 2006, Gut; 569-578
(3) the raw data for the groups of animals sacrificed at different time intervals
needs to be presented since there are clear overlaps in the degree of fibrosis
present at each time point.
Minor revisions
(1) References to the original paper reporting the development of the animal
model for fibrosis and the Xi'an scoring system need to be provided.
(2) What was the basis for the sample sizes? 11 for control group and 12 for the
other groups. Were power calculations or sample size calculations carried out?
(3) Since the fibrosis scores are categorical data the statement on pages 10 'A
better inverse correlation was found between HCI and ICG R15 (r = -0.890, p
<0.01) (Fig 3).' is incorrect, you cannot compare categorical data against
continuous data.
(4) I am not convinced that the liver function tests add anything to this paper.
They show what one would expect to find in animals that had been fed on a
hepatotoxic diet.
(5) The English is difficult to follow at times, some careful editing is need to be
done to address this.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:A Prospective Experimental study of liver fibrosis with ultrasound and Its
Correlation with hepatic reserve function and hemodynamics
Version: 1Date:11 April 2012
Reviewer: Nigel Bird
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
(1) This is an interesting paper but contains some major issues that require
resolution before it is acceptable for publication.
(1) the scoring system categorises fibrosis into 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 but the authors
report only mild moderate and severe. There is no explanation for combining
categories 1 and 2; it is essential that this be justified.
(2) it is generally recognised that two independent, expert histopathologists score
the fibrosis separately and blinded to the origins of the samples and then reach
consensus on different scoring. Inter and intra-observer variability is too great to
ignore this. See Standish et al. 2006, Gut; 569-578
(3) the raw data for the groups of animals sacrificed at different time intervals
needs to be presented since there are clear overlaps in the degree of fibrosis
present at each time point.
Minor revisions
(1) References to the original paper reporting the development of the animal
model for fibrosis and the Xi'an scoring system need to be provided.
(2) What was the basis for the sample sizes? 11 for control group and 12 for the
other groups. Were power calculations or sample size calculations carried out?
(3) Since the fibrosis scores are categorical data the statement on pages 10 'A
better inverse correlation was found between HCI and ICG R15 (r = -0.890, p
<0.01) (Fig 3).' is incorrect, you cannot compare categorical data against
continuous data.
(4) I am not convinced that the liver function tests add anything to this paper.
They show what one would expect to find in animals that had been fed on a
hepatotoxic diet.
(5) The English is difficult to follow at times, some careful editing is need to be
done to address this.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:A Prospective Experimental study of liver fibrosis with ultrasound and Its
Correlation with hepatic reserve function and hemodynamics
Version: 1Date:11 April 2012
Reviewer: Nigel Bird
Reviewer's report:
Major revisions
(1) This is an interesting paper but contains some major issues that require
resolution before it is acceptable for publication.
(1) the scoring system categorises fibrosis into 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 but the authors
report only mild moderate and severe. There is no explanation for combining
categories 1 and 2; it is essential that this be justified.
(2) it is generally recognised that two independent, expert histopathologists score
the fibrosis separately and blinded to the origins of the samples and then reach
consensus on different scoring. Inter and intra-observer variability is too great to
ignore this. See Standish et al. 2006, Gut; 569-578
(3) the raw data for the groups of animals sacrificed at different time intervals
needs to be presented since there are clear overlaps in the degree of fibrosis
present at each time point.
Minor revisions
(1) References to the original paper reporting the development of the animal
model for fibrosis and the Xi'an scoring system need to be provided.
(2) What was the basis for the sample sizes? 11 for control group and 12 for the
other groups. Were power calculations or sample size calculations carried out?
(3) Since the fibrosis scores are categorical data the statement on pages 10 'A
better inverse correlation was found between HCI and ICG R15 (r = -0.890, p
<0.01) (Fig 3).' is incorrect, you cannot compare categorical data against
continuous data.
(4) I am not convinced that the liver function tests add anything to this paper.
They show what one would expect to find in animals that had been fed on a
hepatotoxic diet.
(5) The English is difficult to follow at times, some careful editing is need to be
done to address this.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare no competing interests
assistant