Title: Analysis of clinical features and prognostic factors in patients with Hepatic Hydrothorax:
A single-center study from China
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks to the authors for addressing all the points highlighted in the previous revision.
They did a great job.
I just have three minor comments that can be easily addressed:
1. In the statistical analysis section, with the changes incorporated in the revision, the following
text is not clear "The variables that met the hypothesis test were incorporated into the univariate
Cox proportional hazard model to assess the effect of different variables on survival time". You
could say instead: "The variables that seemed to satisfy the proportional hazard assumption were
incorporated..." or something similar.
2. Also in the statistical analysis section, after incorporating the explanation of how you select
your variables in the multivariate analysis, the following text does not make sense now: "After
controlling for covariates that were associated with liver-related mortality in the univariate
analysis, determined the association between statistically significant factors and the prognostic
impact of HH".  I suggest just removing it.
3. In section 3.4 of the results, it is not clear what the authors mean by the 95% confidence
interval for the follow-up time. In clinical papers, the follow-up time is usually reported in
median and interquartile range. The follow-up time is not "estimated".
Title: Analysis of clinical features and prognostic factors in patients with Hepatic Hydrothorax:
A single-center study from China
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks to the authors for addressing all the points highlighted in the previous revision.
They did a great job.
I just have three minor comments that can be easily addressed:
1. In the statistical analysis section, with the changes incorporated in the revision, the following
text is not clear "The variables that met the hypothesis test were incorporated into the univariate
Cox proportional hazard model to assess the effect of different variables on survival time". You
could say instead: "The variables that seemed to satisfy the proportional hazard assumption were
incorporated..." or something similar.
2. Also in the statistical analysis section, after incorporating the explanation of how you select
your variables in the multivariate analysis, the following text does not make sense now: "After
controlling for covariates that were associated with liver-related mortality in the univariate
analysis, determined the association between statistically significant factors and the prognostic
impact of HH".  I suggest just removing it.
3. In section 3.4 of the results, it is not clear what the authors mean by the 95% confidence
interval for the follow-up time. In clinical papers, the follow-up time is usually reported in
median and interquartile range. The follow-up time is not "estimated".
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Analysis of clinical features and prognostic factors in patients with Hepatic Hydrothorax:
A single-center study from China
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jun 2022
Reviewer's report:
Many thanks to the authors for addressing all the points highlighted in the previous revision.
They did a great job.
I just have three minor comments that can be easily addressed:
1. In the statistical analysis section, with the changes incorporated in the revision, the following
text is not clear "The variables that met the hypothesis test were incorporated into the univariate
Cox proportional hazard model to assess the effect of different variables on survival time". You
could say instead: "The variables that seemed to satisfy the proportional hazard assumption were
incorporated..." or something similar.
2. Also in the statistical analysis section, after incorporating the explanation of how you select
your variables in the multivariate analysis, the following text does not make sense now: "After
controlling for covariates that were associated with liver-related mortality in the univariate
analysis, determined the association between statistically significant factors and the prognostic
impact of HH".  I suggest just removing it.
3. In section 3.4 of the results, it is not clear what the authors mean by the 95% confidence
interval for the follow-up time. In clinical papers, the follow-up time is usually reported in
median and interquartile range. The follow-up time is not "estimated".
assistant