Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Patients with Hepatitis C and
Cirrhosis Carrying IL28B Minor Genotype
Version: 1Date:14 September 2012
Reviewer: José M. Ladero
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. Virological response (VR) must be defined in the abstract as "response during
therapy". The use of this criteria as a reflect of result of therapy is confusing
because the gold standard for therapeutic response is sustained viral response
(SVR: undetectable HCV-RNA in serum 6 months after the end of therapy). This
result must be probably known in all patients and I strongly suggest to the
authors to reevaluate their analysis under the scope of SVR, as the clinical
interest of this study consists on the repercusion of splenectomy (with or without
its effect on the functional role of the analysed polymorphisms) on the definitive
results of therapy.
2. The conclusion on the relation between IL28B polymorphism and splenectomy
in terms of VR rely on a small number of splenectomized patients (11 cases) and
the difference is near the limit of significance. Thus, it seems adequate to
consider other baseline prognostic factors for response, mainly viral genotype but
also viral load and age.
Discretinary revisions:
1. What was the rate of therapeutic failure due to cytopenias (mainly
thrombopenia) in ecach group? It seems probable that more patients in the
non-splenectomy group suffered from extreme thrombopenia during therapy
leading to its interruption or at least to a reduction in IFN dosage.
2. The expression "Type C cirrhotic patients" in the abstract may be confusing as
it may be interpreted as "Child-Pugh class C". Instead, it should be better
"patients with HCV-induced cirrhosis"
3. Page 8, 3rd. paragraph, line 3: < 10(4) or 10(5)?
4. Table 2: should it be better to provide date on odss ratio with confidence
interval for categorical variables instead the huge p value.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interest to declare
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Patients with Hepatitis C and
Cirrhosis Carrying IL28B Minor Genotype
Version: 1Date:14 September 2012
Reviewer: José M. Ladero
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. Virological response (VR) must be defined in the abstract as "response during
therapy". The use of this criteria as a reflect of result of therapy is confusing
because the gold standard for therapeutic response is sustained viral response
(SVR: undetectable HCV-RNA in serum 6 months after the end of therapy). This
result must be probably known in all patients and I strongly suggest to the
authors to reevaluate their analysis under the scope of SVR, as the clinical
interest of this study consists on the repercusion of splenectomy (with or without
its effect on the functional role of the analysed polymorphisms) on the definitive
results of therapy.
2. The conclusion on the relation between IL28B polymorphism and splenectomy
in terms of VR rely on a small number of splenectomized patients (11 cases) and
the difference is near the limit of significance. Thus, it seems adequate to
consider other baseline prognostic factors for response, mainly viral genotype but
also viral load and age.
Discretinary revisions:
1. What was the rate of therapeutic failure due to cytopenias (mainly
thrombopenia) in ecach group? It seems probable that more patients in the
non-splenectomy group suffered from extreme thrombopenia during therapy
leading to its interruption or at least to a reduction in IFN dosage.
2. The expression "Type C cirrhotic patients" in the abstract may be confusing as
it may be interpreted as "Child-Pugh class C". Instead, it should be better
"patients with HCV-induced cirrhosis"
3. Page 8, 3rd. paragraph, line 3: < 10(4) or 10(5)?
4. Table 2: should it be better to provide date on odss ratio with confidence
interval for categorical variables instead the huge p value.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interest to declare
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Effect of Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Patients with Hepatitis C and
Cirrhosis Carrying IL28B Minor Genotype
Version: 1Date:14 September 2012
Reviewer: José M. Ladero
Reviewer's report:
Minor essential revisions
1. Virological response (VR) must be defined in the abstract as "response during
therapy". The use of this criteria as a reflect of result of therapy is confusing
because the gold standard for therapeutic response is sustained viral response
(SVR: undetectable HCV-RNA in serum 6 months after the end of therapy). This
result must be probably known in all patients and I strongly suggest to the
authors to reevaluate their analysis under the scope of SVR, as the clinical
interest of this study consists on the repercusion of splenectomy (with or without
its effect on the functional role of the analysed polymorphisms) on the definitive
results of therapy.
2. The conclusion on the relation between IL28B polymorphism and splenectomy
in terms of VR rely on a small number of splenectomized patients (11 cases) and
the difference is near the limit of significance. Thus, it seems adequate to
consider other baseline prognostic factors for response, mainly viral genotype but
also viral load and age.
Discretinary revisions:
1. What was the rate of therapeutic failure due to cytopenias (mainly
thrombopenia) in ecach group? It seems probable that more patients in the
non-splenectomy group suffered from extreme thrombopenia during therapy
leading to its interruption or at least to a reduction in IFN dosage.
2. The expression "Type C cirrhotic patients" in the abstract may be confusing as
it may be interpreted as "Child-Pugh class C". Instead, it should be better
"patients with HCV-induced cirrhosis"
3. Page 8, 3rd. paragraph, line 3: < 10(4) or 10(5)?
4. Table 2: should it be better to provide date on odss ratio with confidence
interval for categorical variables instead the huge p value.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
No competing interest to declare
assistant