Title: Predicting the risk of early bleeding following endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic
patients with computed tomography
Version: 3 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Yan He
Reviewer's report:
The language of this article should be improved. Some of these mistakes are listed as follows.
In page 3, the authors said “Gastroesophageal varices are one of the most common complications
of…”, where the word “are” should be revised as “is”.
In page 7, the authors said “Eighty-three (29.1) patients had…”, where the number “29.1” should
be revised as “29.1%”.
The use of abbreviations and full names should be standardized. Some of these mistakes are
listed as follows.
In page 3, the authors said “…high AST to platelet ratio index (APRI) score…”, where the full
name of “AST” should be given.
In page 7, the authors said “…had a concomitant GV…”, where the full name of “GV” should
be given. And in page 7, the authors said “and PT time…”, where the full name of “PT” should
be given.
In page 4, the authors said “The present study aimed to evaluate CT performance in predicting
the risk of early rebleeding following EVL, in patients with cirrhosis”, however, not all patients
included had a history of variceal bleeding, so the description of “rebleeding” appears to be in
accurate. In addition, the authors said “…and 122 (42.8%) patients had hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC)…”, the population heterogeneity in this study seems to be a bit large.
In page 4, the authors said “Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were not administered after EVL”, a
relevant article should be cited (PMID: 36741070).
In page 6, the authors said “All variables selected in univariate analysis (p < 0.20) were included
in the multivariate model”, why adopt a standard with p < 0.20?
Title: Predicting the risk of early bleeding following endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic
patients with computed tomography
Version: 3 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Yan He
Reviewer's report:
The language of this article should be improved. Some of these mistakes are listed as follows.
In page 3, the authors said “Gastroesophageal varices are one of the most common complications
of…”, where the word “are” should be revised as “is”.
In page 7, the authors said “Eighty-three (29.1) patients had…”, where the number “29.1” should
be revised as “29.1%”.
The use of abbreviations and full names should be standardized. Some of these mistakes are
listed as follows.
In page 3, the authors said “…high AST to platelet ratio index (APRI) score…”, where the full
name of “AST” should be given.
In page 7, the authors said “…had a concomitant GV…”, where the full name of “GV” should
be given. And in page 7, the authors said “and PT time…”, where the full name of “PT” should
be given.
In page 4, the authors said “The present study aimed to evaluate CT performance in predicting
the risk of early rebleeding following EVL, in patients with cirrhosis”, however, not all patients
included had a history of variceal bleeding, so the description of “rebleeding” appears to be in
accurate. In addition, the authors said “…and 122 (42.8%) patients had hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC)…”, the population heterogeneity in this study seems to be a bit large.
In page 4, the authors said “Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were not administered after EVL”, a
relevant article should be cited (PMID: 36741070).
In page 6, the authors said “All variables selected in univariate analysis (p < 0.20) were included
in the multivariate model”, why adopt a standard with p < 0.20?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predicting the risk of early bleeding following endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic
patients with computed tomography
Version: 3 Date: 30 Aug 2023
Reviewer:  Yan He
Reviewer's report:
The language of this article should be improved. Some of these mistakes are listed as follows.
In page 3, the authors said “Gastroesophageal varices are one of the most common complications
of…”, where the word “are” should be revised as “is”.
In page 7, the authors said “Eighty-three (29.1) patients had…”, where the number “29.1” should
be revised as “29.1%”.
The use of abbreviations and full names should be standardized. Some of these mistakes are
listed as follows.
In page 3, the authors said “…high AST to platelet ratio index (APRI) score…”, where the full
name of “AST” should be given.
In page 7, the authors said “…had a concomitant GV…”, where the full name of “GV” should
be given. And in page 7, the authors said “and PT time…”, where the full name of “PT” should
be given.
In page 4, the authors said “The present study aimed to evaluate CT performance in predicting
the risk of early rebleeding following EVL, in patients with cirrhosis”, however, not all patients
included had a history of variceal bleeding, so the description of “rebleeding” appears to be in
accurate. In addition, the authors said “…and 122 (42.8%) patients had hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC)…”, the population heterogeneity in this study seems to be a bit large.
In page 4, the authors said “Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were not administered after EVL”, a
relevant article should be cited (PMID: 36741070).
In page 6, the authors said “All variables selected in univariate analysis (p < 0.20) were included
in the multivariate model”, why adopt a standard with p < 0.20?
assistant