Title: The impact of Karnofsky Performance Status on prognosis of patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma in liver transplantation
Version: 3 Date: 27 Dec 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: Overall, the revised manuscript is better-structured, with each
section logically flowing into the next. The authors have effectively addressed initial comments.
One aspect that initially eluded my attention is the publication of a Chinese research team
utilizing a U.S. database. It would be beneficial for the authors to provide a more detailed
explanation of how they accessed the data, including clarifications on data ownership and the
permissions obtained for data use.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- Tables 2 and 3 are self-explanatory, and thus, there is no need to repeat the information within
the text (it makes it more difficult to follow)."
Title: The impact of Karnofsky Performance Status on prognosis of patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma in liver transplantation
Version: 3 Date: 27 Dec 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: Overall, the revised manuscript is better-structured, with each
section logically flowing into the next. The authors have effectively addressed initial comments.
One aspect that initially eluded my attention is the publication of a Chinese research team
utilizing a U.S. database. It would be beneficial for the authors to provide a more detailed
explanation of how they accessed the data, including clarifications on data ownership and the
permissions obtained for data use.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- Tables 2 and 3 are self-explanatory, and thus, there is no need to repeat the information within
the text (it makes it more difficult to follow)."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The impact of Karnofsky Performance Status on prognosis of patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma in liver transplantation
Version: 3 Date: 27 Dec 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: Overall, the revised manuscript is better-structured, with each
section logically flowing into the next. The authors have effectively addressed initial comments.
One aspect that initially eluded my attention is the publication of a Chinese research team
utilizing a U.S. database. It would be beneficial for the authors to provide a more detailed
explanation of how they accessed the data, including clarifications on data ownership and the
permissions obtained for data use.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
- Tables 2 and 3 are self-explanatory, and thus, there is no need to repeat the information within
the text (it makes it more difficult to follow)."
assistant