Title: A meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of tissue Golgi protein 73(tGP73) in
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this meta-analysis, Wei-Ming Yu et al. aimed to investigate the prognostic role of
tissue Golgi protein 73 (tGP73) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its relationship with
clinicopathological features. The study focused on the expression of tGP73 in HCC tissue
and its potential impact on patient outcomes. The authors highlighted the limited existing
research on this topic and the absence of a consensus. Their objective was to provide insights
into the prognostic significance of tGP73 in HCC and its clinical implications. The research
methodology employed in this study appears reasonable and exhibits a degree of innovation.
However, there are several potential issues that require attention. I have a major comment which
is described below. I recommend that this article major revised.
Basic reporting:
1. In the abstract, the author mentions, "Relevant publications were searched for in PubMed,
EMBASE, OVID, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science database up to March 2023."
However, in the "Material and Methods" section, the author states, "The search was updated to
November 30, 2021." This discrepancy in dates appears to be an oversight on the part of the
author.
2. In the "Material and Methods" section, in the "Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria" part, the
author has already indicated the inclusion of HCC as the inclusion criterion. Therefore, there
is no need to reiterate the exclusion of non-HCC cases in the exclusion criteria. The exclusion
criteria should encompass supplementary items not covered by the inclusion criteria, rather than
redundantly restating the inclusion criteria.
3. In Figure 4, the author states, "The shapes of the funnel plot are symmetric visually." However,
from the visual assessment of the plot, symmetry does not appear to be well-established. Could
the author please clarify the criteria used to judge symmetry in this context?
4. The headers in Table 1 seem to be duplicated, possibly due to formatting issues in the word
processing or table editing software. Table 2 could also be formatted using a three-line table
format to maintain consistency with Tables 1 and 3.
5. In the discussion section, it would be beneficial for the author to provide a more explicit
explanation of why tGP73 is considered an independent risk factor for OS (Overall Survival)
and DFS (Disease-Free Survival) in HCC (Hepatocellular Carcinoma) patients undergoing
hepatectomy. For instance, the author may want to elaborate on the statistical methods used
to establish tGP73's independence from other variables and discuss the biological or clinical
rationale supporting its role as an independent prognostic factor. This would enhance the
scientific clarity of the statement.
Generally, this paper holds some significance, however, some sections require revision. I
recommend the draft be majorly revised.
Title: A meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of tissue Golgi protein 73(tGP73) in
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this meta-analysis, Wei-Ming Yu et al. aimed to investigate the prognostic role of
tissue Golgi protein 73 (tGP73) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its relationship with
clinicopathological features. The study focused on the expression of tGP73 in HCC tissue
and its potential impact on patient outcomes. The authors highlighted the limited existing
research on this topic and the absence of a consensus. Their objective was to provide insights
into the prognostic significance of tGP73 in HCC and its clinical implications. The research
methodology employed in this study appears reasonable and exhibits a degree of innovation.
However, there are several potential issues that require attention. I have a major comment which
is described below. I recommend that this article major revised.
Basic reporting:
1. In the abstract, the author mentions, "Relevant publications were searched for in PubMed,
EMBASE, OVID, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science database up to March 2023."
However, in the "Material and Methods" section, the author states, "The search was updated to
November 30, 2021." This discrepancy in dates appears to be an oversight on the part of the
author.
2. In the "Material and Methods" section, in the "Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria" part, the
author has already indicated the inclusion of HCC as the inclusion criterion. Therefore, there
is no need to reiterate the exclusion of non-HCC cases in the exclusion criteria. The exclusion
criteria should encompass supplementary items not covered by the inclusion criteria, rather than
redundantly restating the inclusion criteria.
3. In Figure 4, the author states, "The shapes of the funnel plot are symmetric visually." However,
from the visual assessment of the plot, symmetry does not appear to be well-established. Could
the author please clarify the criteria used to judge symmetry in this context?
4. The headers in Table 1 seem to be duplicated, possibly due to formatting issues in the word
processing or table editing software. Table 2 could also be formatted using a three-line table
format to maintain consistency with Tables 1 and 3.
5. In the discussion section, it would be beneficial for the author to provide a more explicit
explanation of why tGP73 is considered an independent risk factor for OS (Overall Survival)
and DFS (Disease-Free Survival) in HCC (Hepatocellular Carcinoma) patients undergoing
hepatectomy. For instance, the author may want to elaborate on the statistical methods used
to establish tGP73's independence from other variables and discuss the biological or clinical
rationale supporting its role as an independent prognostic factor. This would enhance the
scientific clarity of the statement.
Generally, this paper holds some significance, however, some sections require revision. I
recommend the draft be majorly revised.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of tissue Golgi protein 73(tGP73) in
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1 Date: 13 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
In this meta-analysis, Wei-Ming Yu et al. aimed to investigate the prognostic role of
tissue Golgi protein 73 (tGP73) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its relationship with
clinicopathological features. The study focused on the expression of tGP73 in HCC tissue
and its potential impact on patient outcomes. The authors highlighted the limited existing
research on this topic and the absence of a consensus. Their objective was to provide insights
into the prognostic significance of tGP73 in HCC and its clinical implications. The research
methodology employed in this study appears reasonable and exhibits a degree of innovation.
However, there are several potential issues that require attention. I have a major comment which
is described below. I recommend that this article major revised.
Basic reporting:
1. In the abstract, the author mentions, "Relevant publications were searched for in PubMed,
EMBASE, OVID, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science database up to March 2023."
However, in the "Material and Methods" section, the author states, "The search was updated to
November 30, 2021." This discrepancy in dates appears to be an oversight on the part of the
author.
2. In the "Material and Methods" section, in the "Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria" part, the
author has already indicated the inclusion of HCC as the inclusion criterion. Therefore, there
is no need to reiterate the exclusion of non-HCC cases in the exclusion criteria. The exclusion
criteria should encompass supplementary items not covered by the inclusion criteria, rather than
redundantly restating the inclusion criteria.
3. In Figure 4, the author states, "The shapes of the funnel plot are symmetric visually." However,
from the visual assessment of the plot, symmetry does not appear to be well-established. Could
the author please clarify the criteria used to judge symmetry in this context?
4. The headers in Table 1 seem to be duplicated, possibly due to formatting issues in the word
processing or table editing software. Table 2 could also be formatted using a three-line table
format to maintain consistency with Tables 1 and 3.
5. In the discussion section, it would be beneficial for the author to provide a more explicit
explanation of why tGP73 is considered an independent risk factor for OS (Overall Survival)
and DFS (Disease-Free Survival) in HCC (Hepatocellular Carcinoma) patients undergoing
hepatectomy. For instance, the author may want to elaborate on the statistical methods used
to establish tGP73's independence from other variables and discuss the biological or clinical
rationale supporting its role as an independent prognostic factor. This would enhance the
scientific clarity of the statement.
Generally, this paper holds some significance, however, some sections require revision. I
recommend the draft be majorly revised.
assistant