Title: Ascites Complications Risk Factors of Decompensated Cirrhosis Patients: Logistic
Regression and Prediction Model
Version: 0 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their manuscript. The topic is very interesting
and I was very happy to read it. However, I don’t think that the manuscript in its present form
is ready for publication. I believe that there are some problems both with the methodology and
with the writing. Here I report my suggestions that I hope could help improving the work.
- I believe that the setting in which the analysis was made is well characterized. I understood that
they’re all inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis and discrimination between patients with and
without ascites is made at discharge. However, the reason for hospitalization is not very clear.
Are they hospitalized for an Acute Decompensation? If so, which type of decompensation? How
many patients had no signs of ascites at inclusion and developed it during hospital stay? Was
it subsequent to another decompensation?
- How many patients had previous decompensating event before the index hospitalization?
Further decompensation is known to have worse impact on prognosis than first decompensating
event
- Moreover, patients were diagnosed with ascites when they had at least 200 ml of intrabdominal
fluid. Therefore I believe that some of them had Grade 1 ascites, for which at present time there is
no treatment indication and that for the scarce present literature have no grater risk than patients
with no ascites of developing overt ascites. Therefore I believe that the authors should do a sub-
analysis excluding patients with Grade 1 ascites.
- How were patients with ascites treated?
- How many patients with ascites developed SBP and/or AKI? These complications could
worsen the prognosis of patients with ascites.
- Is it possible to calculate MELD score for the patients? I believe it’s pretty obvious that patients
with ascites had worse Child Pugh values since ascites is one of the components.
- How many patients with varices were treated with NSBBs?
- Finally, I suggest a revision in the writing of the manuscript. The introduction is way to long
and conveys messages related to the findings of the study that should be moved in the discussion
section. Methods’ section should be revised in order to make the setting clearer. There are
some abbreviations that are used once, and the non-abbreviated term is then used throughout
the text. I also suggest a revision of the references. For example, authors state that diagnosis of
decompensated cirrhosis is according to EASL CPGs. However, those are never cited in the text.
Title: Ascites Complications Risk Factors of Decompensated Cirrhosis Patients: Logistic
Regression and Prediction Model
Version: 0 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their manuscript. The topic is very interesting
and I was very happy to read it. However, I don’t think that the manuscript in its present form
is ready for publication. I believe that there are some problems both with the methodology and
with the writing. Here I report my suggestions that I hope could help improving the work.
- I believe that the setting in which the analysis was made is well characterized. I understood that
they’re all inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis and discrimination between patients with and
without ascites is made at discharge. However, the reason for hospitalization is not very clear.
Are they hospitalized for an Acute Decompensation? If so, which type of decompensation? How
many patients had no signs of ascites at inclusion and developed it during hospital stay? Was
it subsequent to another decompensation?
- How many patients had previous decompensating event before the index hospitalization?
Further decompensation is known to have worse impact on prognosis than first decompensating
event
- Moreover, patients were diagnosed with ascites when they had at least 200 ml of intrabdominal
fluid. Therefore I believe that some of them had Grade 1 ascites, for which at present time there is
no treatment indication and that for the scarce present literature have no grater risk than patients
with no ascites of developing overt ascites. Therefore I believe that the authors should do a sub-
analysis excluding patients with Grade 1 ascites.
- How were patients with ascites treated?
- How many patients with ascites developed SBP and/or AKI? These complications could
worsen the prognosis of patients with ascites.
- Is it possible to calculate MELD score for the patients? I believe it’s pretty obvious that patients
with ascites had worse Child Pugh values since ascites is one of the components.
- How many patients with varices were treated with NSBBs?
- Finally, I suggest a revision in the writing of the manuscript. The introduction is way to long
and conveys messages related to the findings of the study that should be moved in the discussion
section. Methods’ section should be revised in order to make the setting clearer. There are
some abbreviations that are used once, and the non-abbreviated term is then used throughout
the text. I also suggest a revision of the references. For example, authors state that diagnosis of
decompensated cirrhosis is according to EASL CPGs. However, those are never cited in the text.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Ascites Complications Risk Factors of Decompensated Cirrhosis Patients: Logistic
Regression and Prediction Model
Version: 0 Date: 12 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their manuscript. The topic is very interesting
and I was very happy to read it. However, I don’t think that the manuscript in its present form
is ready for publication. I believe that there are some problems both with the methodology and
with the writing. Here I report my suggestions that I hope could help improving the work.
- I believe that the setting in which the analysis was made is well characterized. I understood that
they’re all inpatients with decompensated cirrhosis and discrimination between patients with and
without ascites is made at discharge. However, the reason for hospitalization is not very clear.
Are they hospitalized for an Acute Decompensation? If so, which type of decompensation? How
many patients had no signs of ascites at inclusion and developed it during hospital stay? Was
it subsequent to another decompensation?
- How many patients had previous decompensating event before the index hospitalization?
Further decompensation is known to have worse impact on prognosis than first decompensating
event
- Moreover, patients were diagnosed with ascites when they had at least 200 ml of intrabdominal
fluid. Therefore I believe that some of them had Grade 1 ascites, for which at present time there is
no treatment indication and that for the scarce present literature have no grater risk than patients
with no ascites of developing overt ascites. Therefore I believe that the authors should do a sub-
analysis excluding patients with Grade 1 ascites.
- How were patients with ascites treated?
- How many patients with ascites developed SBP and/or AKI? These complications could
worsen the prognosis of patients with ascites.
- Is it possible to calculate MELD score for the patients? I believe it’s pretty obvious that patients
with ascites had worse Child Pugh values since ascites is one of the components.
- How many patients with varices were treated with NSBBs?
- Finally, I suggest a revision in the writing of the manuscript. The introduction is way to long
and conveys messages related to the findings of the study that should be moved in the discussion
section. Methods’ section should be revised in order to make the setting clearer. There are
some abbreviations that are used once, and the non-abbreviated term is then used throughout
the text. I also suggest a revision of the references. For example, authors state that diagnosis of
decompensated cirrhosis is according to EASL CPGs. However, those are never cited in the text.
assistant