Title: Prognostic factors of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents: A population study
based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
Version: 6 Date: 07 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript demonstrates the authors' efforts to enhance the article's quality.
However, I still have a few concerns that remain unaddressed.
1. Table 2 presents overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates, but it also includes corresponding
rates for each subgroup of variables. This inclusion is perplexing since the prognostic differences
for each variable have already been analyzed in Table 3. Consequently, the information
presented in Table 2 becomes statistically difficult to interpret, meaningless, and inappropriate.
2. The authors' survival analysis in Table 3 is also confusing. They attempt to conduct one-
by-one comparisons within subgroups of variables to demonstrate the corresponding p-values
and potential survival differences. However, there are two issues here. Firstly, performing one-
by-one comparisons for variables with more than two subgroups increases the likelihood of a
Type I error. Secondly, when conducting multiple comparisons of subgroups, the significance
level should no longer be 0.05, but rather adjusted to 0.05/n, where n represents the number of
multiple comparisons. The same issue applies to the multivariate Cox modeling. I recommend
seeking assistance from a statistics professional to address this problem adequately.
3. It is advisable to seek the assistance of a native English speaker to further refine the language.
Additionally, please ensure that the images are appropriately embellished, aligned neatly, have
consistent font sizes, and increased resolution.
I anticipate further revisions from the authors to enhance the manuscript's quality, and I am
willing to review it again.
Title: Prognostic factors of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents: A population study
based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
Version: 6 Date: 07 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript demonstrates the authors' efforts to enhance the article's quality.
However, I still have a few concerns that remain unaddressed.
1. Table 2 presents overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates, but it also includes corresponding
rates for each subgroup of variables. This inclusion is perplexing since the prognostic differences
for each variable have already been analyzed in Table 3. Consequently, the information
presented in Table 2 becomes statistically difficult to interpret, meaningless, and inappropriate.
2. The authors' survival analysis in Table 3 is also confusing. They attempt to conduct one-
by-one comparisons within subgroups of variables to demonstrate the corresponding p-values
and potential survival differences. However, there are two issues here. Firstly, performing one-
by-one comparisons for variables with more than two subgroups increases the likelihood of a
Type I error. Secondly, when conducting multiple comparisons of subgroups, the significance
level should no longer be 0.05, but rather adjusted to 0.05/n, where n represents the number of
multiple comparisons. The same issue applies to the multivariate Cox modeling. I recommend
seeking assistance from a statistics professional to address this problem adequately.
3. It is advisable to seek the assistance of a native English speaker to further refine the language.
Additionally, please ensure that the images are appropriately embellished, aligned neatly, have
consistent font sizes, and increased resolution.
I anticipate further revisions from the authors to enhance the manuscript's quality, and I am
willing to review it again.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Prognostic factors of pancreatic tumors in children and adolescents: A population study
based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
Version: 6 Date: 07 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
The revised manuscript demonstrates the authors' efforts to enhance the article's quality.
However, I still have a few concerns that remain unaddressed.
1. Table 2 presents overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates, but it also includes corresponding
rates for each subgroup of variables. This inclusion is perplexing since the prognostic differences
for each variable have already been analyzed in Table 3. Consequently, the information
presented in Table 2 becomes statistically difficult to interpret, meaningless, and inappropriate.
2. The authors' survival analysis in Table 3 is also confusing. They attempt to conduct one-
by-one comparisons within subgroups of variables to demonstrate the corresponding p-values
and potential survival differences. However, there are two issues here. Firstly, performing one-
by-one comparisons for variables with more than two subgroups increases the likelihood of a
Type I error. Secondly, when conducting multiple comparisons of subgroups, the significance
level should no longer be 0.05, but rather adjusted to 0.05/n, where n represents the number of
multiple comparisons. The same issue applies to the multivariate Cox modeling. I recommend
seeking assistance from a statistics professional to address this problem adequately.
3. It is advisable to seek the assistance of a native English speaker to further refine the language.
Additionally, please ensure that the images are appropriately embellished, aligned neatly, have
consistent font sizes, and increased resolution.
I anticipate further revisions from the authors to enhance the manuscript's quality, and I am
willing to review it again.
assistant