Reviewer's report
Title:Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer:
a systematic review
Version: 2Date:11 December 2010
Reviewer: Katja Ott
Reviewer's report:
The metaanalysis is on an interesting topic, because pretherapeutic staging in
gastric cancer gains importance due to the individualization of treatment.
However only the question of distant metastases (liver metastases and peritoneal
carcinomatosis) are addressed in this paper.
There is a clear aim of the study.
The metaanalysis seems to be conducted well, but needs to be reviewed by a
statistician to proof, whether the methods are appropriate.
Major revisions:
1.It would have been interesting to included reports on laparoscpy, because, it is
generally accepted, that the sensitivity for PC is really low for the chosen
stagingmethods
2. Is there a difference in sensitivity/specificity in respect of the Lauren
classification. It supposed to be higher for the intestinal subtype.
3. PET is not appropriate for the prediction of a PC. Especially nonintestinal
tumors are FDG inavid. Is there a difference in the sensitivity or specificity in
respect of the Lauren classification
4. The figure have to be explained better, because a nonstatistician cannot gain
proper information without special knowledge
Minor revisions:
1. spelling error: tittles
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer:
a systematic review
Version: 2Date:11 December 2010
Reviewer: Katja Ott
Reviewer's report:
The metaanalysis is on an interesting topic, because pretherapeutic staging in
gastric cancer gains importance due to the individualization of treatment.
However only the question of distant metastases (liver metastases and peritoneal
carcinomatosis) are addressed in this paper.
There is a clear aim of the study.
The metaanalysis seems to be conducted well, but needs to be reviewed by a
statistician to proof, whether the methods are appropriate.
Major revisions:
1.It would have been interesting to included reports on laparoscpy, because, it is
generally accepted, that the sensitivity for PC is really low for the chosen
stagingmethods
2. Is there a difference in sensitivity/specificity in respect of the Lauren
classification. It supposed to be higher for the intestinal subtype.
3. PET is not appropriate for the prediction of a PC. Especially nonintestinal
tumors are FDG inavid. Is there a difference in the sensitivity or specificity in
respect of the Lauren classification
4. The figure have to be explained better, because a nonstatistician cannot gain
proper information without special knowledge
Minor revisions:
1. spelling error: tittles
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer:
a systematic review
Version: 2Date:11 December 2010
Reviewer: Katja Ott
Reviewer's report:
The metaanalysis is on an interesting topic, because pretherapeutic staging in
gastric cancer gains importance due to the individualization of treatment.
However only the question of distant metastases (liver metastases and peritoneal
carcinomatosis) are addressed in this paper.
There is a clear aim of the study.
The metaanalysis seems to be conducted well, but needs to be reviewed by a
statistician to proof, whether the methods are appropriate.
Major revisions:
1.It would have been interesting to included reports on laparoscpy, because, it is
generally accepted, that the sensitivity for PC is really low for the chosen
stagingmethods
2. Is there a difference in sensitivity/specificity in respect of the Lauren
classification. It supposed to be higher for the intestinal subtype.
3. PET is not appropriate for the prediction of a PC. Especially nonintestinal
tumors are FDG inavid. Is there a difference in the sensitivity or specificity in
respect of the Lauren classification
4. The figure have to be explained better, because a nonstatistician cannot gain
proper information without special knowledge
Minor revisions:
1. spelling error: tittles
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant