Reviewer’ s report
Title: Impact of low skeletal muscle mass index and perioperative blood transfusion on the
prognosis for HCC following curative resection
Version: 0Date: 24 Mar 2020
Reviewer: Masatoshi Ishigami
Reviewer's report:
Bekki T et al. have described a manuscript entitled "Impact of low skeletal muscle mass index and
perioperative blood transfusion on the prognosis for HCC following curative resection". I haveseveral criticisms regarding this manuscript as follows,
1.In the inclusion criteria in Figure 1, the authors have described that "159 patients were treated
with early and delay cholecystectomy". What does it mean?2.Expression of the definition of IM is not clear.3.In statistical analysis, how did the authors investigate the multivariate analysis?4.And also, in univariate analysis, only Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test were done.However, this study includes time axis, so such kind of statistics is not proper in this study.5.It is well-known that tumor number and size affected not only RFS but OS by a lot of previousstudies. So it is something strange for not determined as the associated factors for OS.6.The authors compared the background between low and high SMI group and betweentransfusion and non-transfusion group. What is the significance of this analysis? There are nodiscussions about this point.7.Between transfusion and non-transfusion group, PIVKA-II was significantly different among
two groups. This should affect the RFS as the confounding factor for RFS, is it by chance or some
clear reasons? The authors have not describe this point.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Impact of low skeletal muscle mass index and perioperative blood transfusion on the
prognosis for HCC following curative resection
Version: 0Date: 24 Mar 2020
Reviewer: Masatoshi Ishigami
Reviewer's report:
Bekki T et al. have described a manuscript entitled "Impact of low skeletal muscle mass index and
perioperative blood transfusion on the prognosis for HCC following curative resection". I haveseveral criticisms regarding this manuscript as follows,
1.In the inclusion criteria in Figure 1, the authors have described that "159 patients were treated
with early and delay cholecystectomy". What does it mean?2.Expression of the definition of IM is not clear.3.In statistical analysis, how did the authors investigate the multivariate analysis?4.And also, in univariate analysis, only Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test were done.However, this study includes time axis, so such kind of statistics is not proper in this study.5.It is well-known that tumor number and size affected not only RFS but OS by a lot of previousstudies. So it is something strange for not determined as the associated factors for OS.6.The authors compared the background between low and high SMI group and betweentransfusion and non-transfusion group. What is the significance of this analysis? There are nodiscussions about this point.7.Between transfusion and non-transfusion group, PIVKA-II was significantly different among
two groups. This should affect the RFS as the confounding factor for RFS, is it by chance or some
clear reasons? The authors have not describe this point.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Impact of low skeletal muscle mass index and perioperative blood transfusion on the
prognosis for HCC following curative resection
Version: 0Date: 24 Mar 2020
Reviewer: Masatoshi Ishigami
Reviewer's report:
Bekki T et al. have described a manuscript entitled "Impact of low skeletal muscle mass index and
perioperative blood transfusion on the prognosis for HCC following curative resection". I haveseveral criticisms regarding this manuscript as follows,
1.In the inclusion criteria in Figure 1, the authors have described that "159 patients were treated
with early and delay cholecystectomy". What does it mean?2.Expression of the definition of IM is not clear.3.In statistical analysis, how did the authors investigate the multivariate analysis?4.And also, in univariate analysis, only Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test were done.However, this study includes time axis, so such kind of statistics is not proper in this study.5.It is well-known that tumor number and size affected not only RFS but OS by a lot of previousstudies. So it is something strange for not determined as the associated factors for OS.6.The authors compared the background between low and high SMI group and betweentransfusion and non-transfusion group. What is the significance of this analysis? There are nodiscussions about this point.7.Between transfusion and non-transfusion group, PIVKA-II was significantly different among
two groups. This should affect the RFS as the confounding factor for RFS, is it by chance or some
clear reasons? The authors have not describe this point.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I recommend additional statistical reviewQuality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Acceptable
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named reportincluding any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal
assistant