Reviewer's report
Title:Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: An analysis of
1961 patients over a period of ten years
Version: 2Date:10 July 2012
Reviewer: Holger Lutz
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Though stated otherwise in the cover letter, the terms of liver “puncture” and
PP are still used in parts of the manuscript. Please apply the changes mentioned
in the cover letter to the whole manuscript.
2. The authors claim, that most of the biopsies are performed on an ambulatory
basis, while in the presented study, two thirds are performed in inpatients. Please
comment on that.
3. The authors still describe their study as “prospective”, though e.g. coagulation
parameters (which are essential for their analyses) were only obtained in 34 %of
all patients. How could biopsies be performed when coagulation parameters
appear to be missing in 66% of the patients? This issue has to be addressed and
data collection has to be changed to retrospective as the study design with
missing data and defined criteria does not fulfill the requirements of a prospective
study.
4. Abbreviations, if used, have to be explained or avoided if only used once (see
discussion, “BC” and “SB”).
5. Missing data on severity of liver disease (fibrosis grade) in patients with
complications compared to patients without is disappointing. In that case,
grouping of diseases in Table 1 for better understanding and smaller table size is
recommended. Furthermore, language should be English throughout the whole
manuscript (“Metastase eines Gastrointestinalen Tumors”). Please revise the
manuscript thoroughly.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Wikipedia links should be removed from the manuscript (see legends for
tables 2 and 3).
2. Tables 2 and 3 should be combined in one table.
3. It does not seem to provide any useful information if different types of
metastases are described in detail; this group should be summarized as
“metastases”.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: An analysis of
1961 patients over a period of ten years
Version: 2Date:10 July 2012
Reviewer: Holger Lutz
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Though stated otherwise in the cover letter, the terms of liver “puncture” and
PP are still used in parts of the manuscript. Please apply the changes mentioned
in the cover letter to the whole manuscript.
2. The authors claim, that most of the biopsies are performed on an ambulatory
basis, while in the presented study, two thirds are performed in inpatients. Please
comment on that.
3. The authors still describe their study as “prospective”, though e.g. coagulation
parameters (which are essential for their analyses) were only obtained in 34 %of
all patients. How could biopsies be performed when coagulation parameters
appear to be missing in 66% of the patients? This issue has to be addressed and
data collection has to be changed to retrospective as the study design with
missing data and defined criteria does not fulfill the requirements of a prospective
study.
4. Abbreviations, if used, have to be explained or avoided if only used once (see
discussion, “BC” and “SB”).
5. Missing data on severity of liver disease (fibrosis grade) in patients with
complications compared to patients without is disappointing. In that case,
grouping of diseases in Table 1 for better understanding and smaller table size is
recommended. Furthermore, language should be English throughout the whole
manuscript (“Metastase eines Gastrointestinalen Tumors”). Please revise the
manuscript thoroughly.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Wikipedia links should be removed from the manuscript (see legends for
tables 2 and 3).
2. Tables 2 and 3 should be combined in one table.
3. It does not seem to provide any useful information if different types of
metastases are described in detail; this group should be summarized as
“metastases”.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: An analysis of
1961 patients over a period of ten years
Version: 2Date:10 July 2012
Reviewer: Holger Lutz
Reviewer's report:
- Major Compulsory Revisions
1. Though stated otherwise in the cover letter, the terms of liver “puncture” and
PP are still used in parts of the manuscript. Please apply the changes mentioned
in the cover letter to the whole manuscript.
2. The authors claim, that most of the biopsies are performed on an ambulatory
basis, while in the presented study, two thirds are performed in inpatients. Please
comment on that.
3. The authors still describe their study as “prospective”, though e.g. coagulation
parameters (which are essential for their analyses) were only obtained in 34 %of
all patients. How could biopsies be performed when coagulation parameters
appear to be missing in 66% of the patients? This issue has to be addressed and
data collection has to be changed to retrospective as the study design with
missing data and defined criteria does not fulfill the requirements of a prospective
study.
4. Abbreviations, if used, have to be explained or avoided if only used once (see
discussion, “BC” and “SB”).
5. Missing data on severity of liver disease (fibrosis grade) in patients with
complications compared to patients without is disappointing. In that case,
grouping of diseases in Table 1 for better understanding and smaller table size is
recommended. Furthermore, language should be English throughout the whole
manuscript (“Metastase eines Gastrointestinalen Tumors”). Please revise the
manuscript thoroughly.
- Minor Essential Revisions
1. Wikipedia links should be removed from the manuscript (see legends for
tables 2 and 3).
2. Tables 2 and 3 should be combined in one table.
3. It does not seem to provide any useful information if different types of
metastases are described in detail; this group should be summarized as
“metastases”.
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:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant