Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 2Date:22 November 2010
Reviewer: Takamichi Murakami
Reviewer's report:
The authors has revised their manuscript according to the reviewer’s
suggestions.
I hope that the authors consider my comments, as mentioned below, to improve
the paper.
Abstract
1, Background
“Gd-BOPTA” should be spelled out.
2, Background
“The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy of hepatic
hemangiomas in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves…” should be
changed to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy
of hepatic Hemangiomas, showing atypical hyperechoic pattern on grey-scale
US, in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves..”.
Introduction
3, The last paragraph, “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether
assessment of hepatic hemangiomas MRI improves with ….” should be changed
to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether assessment of hepatic
hemangiomas, with atypical appearance in US, MRI improves with ….”.
Materials and Methods
4, Page 4, the second paragraph. “The latter characterized by typical
hyperechoic oval pattern with homogeneous or slightly inhomogeneous
echotexture, well-defined margins and posterior wall shadowing.” This is a
characteristic finding of hemangioma. The authors should also clarify the atypical
US findings of hemangioma included in this study.
5, Page 6, the 4th paragraph. “Statistical analysis concerning evaluation of
hemangiomas and malignant lesions in unenhanced, gadolinium-enhanced MR
and CT studies”. The authors should clearly state what they compared
statistically.
Results
6, Page 8, “Unenhanced MR and Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR show higher
diagnostic efficacy in differentiation of hemangiomas than CT
(p<0,000114,…….”. What is “diagnostic efficacy”? Detection sensitivity?
Diagnostic accuracy? As I said in the comment 5, The authors should clearly
state what they compared statistically.
Discussion
7, Page 12, “Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR in comparison with unenhanced MRI
does not improve diagnostic efficacy in discriminating hemangiomas that show
non-specific appearance in ultrasound examination.” The authors should clarify
what is “diagnostic efficacy” and what is “non-specific appearance in ultrasound
examination.?
Figures
8, The authors should also show US images with atypical appearance of the
three cases (case of Fig1,3,4, Fig 2, and Fig 5) .
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 2Date:22 November 2010
Reviewer: Takamichi Murakami
Reviewer's report:
The authors has revised their manuscript according to the reviewer’s
suggestions.
I hope that the authors consider my comments, as mentioned below, to improve
the paper.
Abstract
1, Background
“Gd-BOPTA” should be spelled out.
2, Background
“The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy of hepatic
hemangiomas in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves…” should be
changed to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy
of hepatic Hemangiomas, showing atypical hyperechoic pattern on grey-scale
US, in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves..”.
Introduction
3, The last paragraph, “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether
assessment of hepatic hemangiomas MRI improves with ….” should be changed
to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether assessment of hepatic
hemangiomas, with atypical appearance in US, MRI improves with ….”.
Materials and Methods
4, Page 4, the second paragraph. “The latter characterized by typical
hyperechoic oval pattern with homogeneous or slightly inhomogeneous
echotexture, well-defined margins and posterior wall shadowing.” This is a
characteristic finding of hemangioma. The authors should also clarify the atypical
US findings of hemangioma included in this study.
5, Page 6, the 4th paragraph. “Statistical analysis concerning evaluation of
hemangiomas and malignant lesions in unenhanced, gadolinium-enhanced MR
and CT studies”. The authors should clearly state what they compared
statistically.
Results
6, Page 8, “Unenhanced MR and Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR show higher
diagnostic efficacy in differentiation of hemangiomas than CT
(p<0,000114,…….”. What is “diagnostic efficacy”? Detection sensitivity?
Diagnostic accuracy? As I said in the comment 5, The authors should clearly
state what they compared statistically.
Discussion
7, Page 12, “Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR in comparison with unenhanced MRI
does not improve diagnostic efficacy in discriminating hemangiomas that show
non-specific appearance in ultrasound examination.” The authors should clarify
what is “diagnostic efficacy” and what is “non-specific appearance in ultrasound
examination.?
Figures
8, The authors should also show US images with atypical appearance of the
three cases (case of Fig1,3,4, Fig 2, and Fig 5) .
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Is hepatotropic contrast enhanced MR a more effective method in
differential diagnosis of hemangioma than multi-phase CT and unenhanced MR?
Version: 2Date:22 November 2010
Reviewer: Takamichi Murakami
Reviewer's report:
The authors has revised their manuscript according to the reviewer’s
suggestions.
I hope that the authors consider my comments, as mentioned below, to improve
the paper.
Abstract
1, Background
“Gd-BOPTA” should be spelled out.
2, Background
“The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy of hepatic
hemangiomas in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves…” should be
changed to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether diagnostic accuracy
of hepatic Hemangiomas, showing atypical hyperechoic pattern on grey-scale
US, in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves..”.
Introduction
3, The last paragraph, “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether
assessment of hepatic hemangiomas MRI improves with ….” should be changed
to “The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether assessment of hepatic
hemangiomas, with atypical appearance in US, MRI improves with ….”.
Materials and Methods
4, Page 4, the second paragraph. “The latter characterized by typical
hyperechoic oval pattern with homogeneous or slightly inhomogeneous
echotexture, well-defined margins and posterior wall shadowing.” This is a
characteristic finding of hemangioma. The authors should also clarify the atypical
US findings of hemangioma included in this study.
5, Page 6, the 4th paragraph. “Statistical analysis concerning evaluation of
hemangiomas and malignant lesions in unenhanced, gadolinium-enhanced MR
and CT studies”. The authors should clearly state what they compared
statistically.
Results
6, Page 8, “Unenhanced MR and Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR show higher
diagnostic efficacy in differentiation of hemangiomas than CT
(p<0,000114,…….”. What is “diagnostic efficacy”? Detection sensitivity?
Diagnostic accuracy? As I said in the comment 5, The authors should clearly
state what they compared statistically.
Discussion
7, Page 12, “Gd-BOPTA-enhanced MR in comparison with unenhanced MRI
does not improve diagnostic efficacy in discriminating hemangiomas that show
non-specific appearance in ultrasound examination.” The authors should clarify
what is “diagnostic efficacy” and what is “non-specific appearance in ultrasound
examination.?
Figures
8, The authors should also show US images with atypical appearance of the
three cases (case of Fig1,3,4, Fig 2, and Fig 5) .
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant