Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2Date:17 April 2010
Reviewer: Linda M Wong
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Table 2: "motality" should be "mortality"
2. Abstract: First sentence, ".....better therapy (HR vs RFA)to small hepatocellular
cancer", should probably change "to" to "for"
3. Authors should make a comment as to whether the studies included in this
meta-analysis mentioned if recurrences were treated with salvage liver
transplant. This could make a particular difference in the tumors <3 cm, as more
of these would be likely to qualify for transplant with Milan Criteria.\
4. Abstract: Conclusions: "For tumors <3 cm HR did not differ significantly from
RFA for survival as reported in three NRCTs". Are these patients with single
tumors <3 cm or would this include patients with any tumor < 3cm? Same issue
with table 3 -- this is single tumor< 3 cm.
5. You do make the comment that RFA patients were more likely to have less
favourable characteristics such as multiple nodules in the discussion, however do
the studies give you any insight on the value of HR vs RFA for single vs multiple
tumors? You may want to comment on this as well.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2Date:17 April 2010
Reviewer: Linda M Wong
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Table 2: "motality" should be "mortality"
2. Abstract: First sentence, ".....better therapy (HR vs RFA)to small hepatocellular
cancer", should probably change "to" to "for"
3. Authors should make a comment as to whether the studies included in this
meta-analysis mentioned if recurrences were treated with salvage liver
transplant. This could make a particular difference in the tumors <3 cm, as more
of these would be likely to qualify for transplant with Milan Criteria.\
4. Abstract: Conclusions: "For tumors <3 cm HR did not differ significantly from
RFA for survival as reported in three NRCTs". Are these patients with single
tumors <3 cm or would this include patients with any tumor < 3cm? Same issue
with table 3 -- this is single tumor< 3 cm.
5. You do make the comment that RFA patients were more likely to have less
favourable characteristics such as multiple nodules in the discussion, however do
the studies give you any insight on the value of HR vs RFA for single vs multiple
tumors? You may want to comment on this as well.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 2Date:17 April 2010
Reviewer: Linda M Wong
Reviewer's report:
Minor Essential Revisions
1. Table 2: "motality" should be "mortality"
2. Abstract: First sentence, ".....better therapy (HR vs RFA)to small hepatocellular
cancer", should probably change "to" to "for"
3. Authors should make a comment as to whether the studies included in this
meta-analysis mentioned if recurrences were treated with salvage liver
transplant. This could make a particular difference in the tumors <3 cm, as more
of these would be likely to qualify for transplant with Milan Criteria.\
4. Abstract: Conclusions: "For tumors <3 cm HR did not differ significantly from
RFA for survival as reported in three NRCTs". Are these patients with single
tumors <3 cm or would this include patients with any tumor < 3cm? Same issue
with table 3 -- this is single tumor< 3 cm.
5. You do make the comment that RFA patients were more likely to have less
favourable characteristics such as multiple nodules in the discussion, however do
the studies give you any insight on the value of HR vs RFA for single vs multiple
tumors? You may want to comment on this as well.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
assistant