Title: Clinical significance of transjugular liver biopsy in acute liver failure – a real-world
analysis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, Nalbant and co-workers aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical importance of
transjugular liver biopsies (TJLB) in the management of patients with acute liver failure. Based
on the data of this retrospective, mono-center study, including 43 patients, the authors found that
histologic results obtained by TJLB did not add any clinically important information regarding
diagnosis and/or therapeutic options in the majority of patients. Therefore, the authors question
the routine use of TJLB in patients with acute liver failure.
As mentioned by the authors, this study has several limitations, such as the retrospective design
and small number of patients.
The authors should comment on the main reasons why patients with ALF were not listed for LT.
In total, 15 patients were listed for HU-LT, but only 14 received a new graft. What happened
to the one patient, who was not transplanted?
Why did the authors give information only regarding the antibody status of the patients? At least,
information concerning viral serology should be added in table 1.
In table 2, information regarding the outcome of the patients (e.g. recovered, dead, transplanted)
should be added.
The conclusion of the abstract is confusing. A rewording is necessary.
The discussion is extremely lengthy and contains information of the “Background section”. The
authors should focus on the main findings of their study compared to the literature.
Title: Clinical significance of transjugular liver biopsy in acute liver failure – a real-world
analysis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, Nalbant and co-workers aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical importance of
transjugular liver biopsies (TJLB) in the management of patients with acute liver failure. Based
on the data of this retrospective, mono-center study, including 43 patients, the authors found that
histologic results obtained by TJLB did not add any clinically important information regarding
diagnosis and/or therapeutic options in the majority of patients. Therefore, the authors question
the routine use of TJLB in patients with acute liver failure.
As mentioned by the authors, this study has several limitations, such as the retrospective design
and small number of patients.
The authors should comment on the main reasons why patients with ALF were not listed for LT.
In total, 15 patients were listed for HU-LT, but only 14 received a new graft. What happened
to the one patient, who was not transplanted?
Why did the authors give information only regarding the antibody status of the patients? At least,
information concerning viral serology should be added in table 1.
In table 2, information regarding the outcome of the patients (e.g. recovered, dead, transplanted)
should be added.
The conclusion of the abstract is confusing. A rewording is necessary.
The discussion is extremely lengthy and contains information of the “Background section”. The
authors should focus on the main findings of their study compared to the literature.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical significance of transjugular liver biopsy in acute liver failure – a real-world
analysis
Version: 4 Date: 17 Jun 2024
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, Nalbant and co-workers aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical importance of
transjugular liver biopsies (TJLB) in the management of patients with acute liver failure. Based
on the data of this retrospective, mono-center study, including 43 patients, the authors found that
histologic results obtained by TJLB did not add any clinically important information regarding
diagnosis and/or therapeutic options in the majority of patients. Therefore, the authors question
the routine use of TJLB in patients with acute liver failure.
As mentioned by the authors, this study has several limitations, such as the retrospective design
and small number of patients.
The authors should comment on the main reasons why patients with ALF were not listed for LT.
In total, 15 patients were listed for HU-LT, but only 14 received a new graft. What happened
to the one patient, who was not transplanted?
Why did the authors give information only regarding the antibody status of the patients? At least,
information concerning viral serology should be added in table 1.
In table 2, information regarding the outcome of the patients (e.g. recovered, dead, transplanted)
should be added.
The conclusion of the abstract is confusing. A rewording is necessary.
The discussion is extremely lengthy and contains information of the “Background section”. The
authors should focus on the main findings of their study compared to the literature.
assistant