Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 4 Date: 27 Apr 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 have adequately responded to most of the questions and
concerns raised in my comments and the manuscript has been improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is unclear why the authors have updated the literature search up to September 2003 instead of
March 2024. Given the low number of studies included, any study could be relevant and modify
the results. Thus, I strongly recommend that authors update the bibliographic search up to 31st
March 2024 or even April 2024.
Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 4 Date: 27 Apr 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 have adequately responded to most of the questions and
concerns raised in my comments and the manuscript has been improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is unclear why the authors have updated the literature search up to September 2003 instead of
March 2024. Given the low number of studies included, any study could be relevant and modify
the results. Thus, I strongly recommend that authors update the bibliographic search up to 31st
March 2024 or even April 2024.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Embolization alone is as effective as TACE for unresectable HCC: systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Version: 4 Date: 27 Apr 2024
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
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 have adequately responded to most of the questions and
concerns raised in my comments and the manuscript has been improved.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
It is unclear why the authors have updated the literature search up to September 2003 instead of
March 2024. Given the low number of studies included, any study could be relevant and modify
the results. Thus, I strongly recommend that authors update the bibliographic search up to 31st
March 2024 or even April 2024.
assistant