Title: The association between jaundice and poorly differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine
neoplasms (Ki67 index > 55.0%)
Version: 0 Date: 31 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: A relatively large retrospective study in challenging study
population. Has the potential to improve clinical management.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The following comments may help improve the manuscript:
1. Please provide data on serum bilirubin levels; also indicate the number of patients with missing
bilirubin data.
2. Please justify the exclusion of patients with PNENs in the body and tail of the pancreas.
3. How the absence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was confirmed?
4. Manuscript needs to be reviewed for English grammar and style.
Title: The association between jaundice and poorly differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine
neoplasms (Ki67 index > 55.0%)
Version: 0 Date: 31 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: A relatively large retrospective study in challenging study
population. Has the potential to improve clinical management.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The following comments may help improve the manuscript:
1. Please provide data on serum bilirubin levels; also indicate the number of patients with missing
bilirubin data.
2. Please justify the exclusion of patients with PNENs in the body and tail of the pancreas.
3. How the absence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was confirmed?
4. Manuscript needs to be reviewed for English grammar and style.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The association between jaundice and poorly differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine
neoplasms (Ki67 index > 55.0%)
Version: 0 Date: 31 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: A relatively large retrospective study in challenging study
population. Has the potential to improve clinical management.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The following comments may help improve the manuscript:
1. Please provide data on serum bilirubin levels; also indicate the number of patients with missing
bilirubin data.
2. Please justify the exclusion of patients with PNENs in the body and tail of the pancreas.
3. How the absence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was confirmed?
4. Manuscript needs to be reviewed for English grammar and style.
assistant