Title: Risks and Benefits of TIPS in HCC and Other Liver Malignancies: a literature review
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The Authors made substantial changes to manuscript based on the
previous reviews. I have the following queries:
1. Page 12: ""Qiu et al., and Yan et al. describe that after TIPS placement, predominantly
HE grades 1-2 occurred (in 37.5%, 9.5%, and 9.8% of all patients after TIPS placement,
respectively), and HE grades 3-4 were rare (in 2.5%, 2.4%, and 0.8% of all patients after
TIPS placement)""... What do figures 37.5%, 9.5%, 9.8% and 2.5%, 2.4%, 0.8% mean? This is
confusing. I am not sure when reading this what are the actual proportions.
2. Page 13: ""In a systematic review of 21.461 patients ..."" I am assuming this is 21,461 patients.
Please correct it."
Title: Risks and Benefits of TIPS in HCC and Other Liver Malignancies: a literature review
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The Authors made substantial changes to manuscript based on the
previous reviews. I have the following queries:
1. Page 12: ""Qiu et al., and Yan et al. describe that after TIPS placement, predominantly
HE grades 1-2 occurred (in 37.5%, 9.5%, and 9.8% of all patients after TIPS placement,
respectively), and HE grades 3-4 were rare (in 2.5%, 2.4%, and 0.8% of all patients after
TIPS placement)""... What do figures 37.5%, 9.5%, 9.8% and 2.5%, 2.4%, 0.8% mean? This is
confusing. I am not sure when reading this what are the actual proportions.
2. Page 13: ""In a systematic review of 21.461 patients ..."" I am assuming this is 21,461 patients.
Please correct it."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risks and Benefits of TIPS in HCC and Other Liver Malignancies: a literature review
Version: 1 Date: 23 Oct 2023
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The Authors made substantial changes to manuscript based on the
previous reviews. I have the following queries:
1. Page 12: ""Qiu et al., and Yan et al. describe that after TIPS placement, predominantly
HE grades 1-2 occurred (in 37.5%, 9.5%, and 9.8% of all patients after TIPS placement,
respectively), and HE grades 3-4 were rare (in 2.5%, 2.4%, and 0.8% of all patients after
TIPS placement)""... What do figures 37.5%, 9.5%, 9.8% and 2.5%, 2.4%, 0.8% mean? This is
confusing. I am not sure when reading this what are the actual proportions.
2. Page 13: ""In a systematic review of 21.461 patients ..."" I am assuming this is 21,461 patients.
Please correct it."
assistant