Title: Impact of Nutrition Risk Index, Prognostic Nutritional Index and Skeletal Muscle Index
on early myelosuppression of first-line chemotherapy in stage IV gastric cancer patients
Version: 3 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have responded adequately to most of my raised
concerns. My only minor concern remaining refers to the diet of the patients and how this can
influence hemoglobin levels, presence of sarcopenia, BMI and others. I will come back to this
later in the next part of this evaluation.
They have made the changes in the manuscript and my overall impression is that this paper is
good and has a big potential to be accepted for publication
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
My only minor issue is the diet. Authors have written in the manuscript that all subjects came
from the same area and there they all ate a balanced diet, and their dietary habits were basically
the same and also that there was not a phenomenon of partial or picky eating. I would remove this
statement because it is impossible that all people eat the same no matter if they come from the
same area so this will only attract negative attention to the editor. Instead, I would recommend
the authors to list the lack of dietary records as a limitation of this study with the other limitations
that start on line 284.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
It is important that the authors state the lack of dietary records as a limitation and also remove
the statement that all the diets were the same for all patients
Title: Impact of Nutrition Risk Index, Prognostic Nutritional Index and Skeletal Muscle Index
on early myelosuppression of first-line chemotherapy in stage IV gastric cancer patients
Version: 3 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have responded adequately to most of my raised
concerns. My only minor concern remaining refers to the diet of the patients and how this can
influence hemoglobin levels, presence of sarcopenia, BMI and others. I will come back to this
later in the next part of this evaluation.
They have made the changes in the manuscript and my overall impression is that this paper is
good and has a big potential to be accepted for publication
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
My only minor issue is the diet. Authors have written in the manuscript that all subjects came
from the same area and there they all ate a balanced diet, and their dietary habits were basically
the same and also that there was not a phenomenon of partial or picky eating. I would remove this
statement because it is impossible that all people eat the same no matter if they come from the
same area so this will only attract negative attention to the editor. Instead, I would recommend
the authors to list the lack of dietary records as a limitation of this study with the other limitations
that start on line 284.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
It is important that the authors state the lack of dietary records as a limitation and also remove
the statement that all the diets were the same for all patients
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Impact of Nutrition Risk Index, Prognostic Nutritional Index and Skeletal Muscle Index
on early myelosuppression of first-line chemotherapy in stage IV gastric cancer patients
Version: 3 Date: 07 Nov 2024
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: Yes, the authors have responded adequately to most of my raised
concerns. My only minor concern remaining refers to the diet of the patients and how this can
influence hemoglobin levels, presence of sarcopenia, BMI and others. I will come back to this
later in the next part of this evaluation.
They have made the changes in the manuscript and my overall impression is that this paper is
good and has a big potential to be accepted for publication
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
My only minor issue is the diet. Authors have written in the manuscript that all subjects came
from the same area and there they all ate a balanced diet, and their dietary habits were basically
the same and also that there was not a phenomenon of partial or picky eating. I would remove this
statement because it is impossible that all people eat the same no matter if they come from the
same area so this will only attract negative attention to the editor. Instead, I would recommend
the authors to list the lack of dietary records as a limitation of this study with the other limitations
that start on line 284.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
It is important that the authors state the lack of dietary records as a limitation and also remove
the statement that all the diets were the same for all patients
assistant