Title: Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score as a predictive marker for short-term
complications following gastrectomy of gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reported that preoperative CONUT was associated with the postoperative
complications of gastric cancer patients. There were some weak points in this study. First of all,
this paper does not follow the general formatting guidelines. It is not double-spaced, and there
is no mention of line and page numbering. Second, it has little something new. Lin JX, et al.
have already reported that CONUT score was associated with post-gastrectomy complications.
The authors should be cited for the article by Lin JX, et al.
Lin JX, et al. Which nutritional scoring system is more suitable for evaluating the short- or long-
term prognosis of patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy? J Gastrointest
Surg. 2020 Sep;24(9):1969-1977.
Minor comments
1) The Patients section of Methods should be described in more detail. The inclusion criteria
such as whether it is a surgical case or not, whether it is R0 or not, etc. should also be described.
2) Why are there so few laparoscopic surgeries in spite of the large number of Stage I cases?
3) The journal name in reference 28 is incorrect.
4) The year in reference 31 is wrong.
Title: Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score as a predictive marker for short-term
complications following gastrectomy of gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reported that preoperative CONUT was associated with the postoperative
complications of gastric cancer patients. There were some weak points in this study. First of all,
this paper does not follow the general formatting guidelines. It is not double-spaced, and there
is no mention of line and page numbering. Second, it has little something new. Lin JX, et al.
have already reported that CONUT score was associated with post-gastrectomy complications.
The authors should be cited for the article by Lin JX, et al.
Lin JX, et al. Which nutritional scoring system is more suitable for evaluating the short- or long-
term prognosis of patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy? J Gastrointest
Surg. 2020 Sep;24(9):1969-1977.
Minor comments
1) The Patients section of Methods should be described in more detail. The inclusion criteria
such as whether it is a surgical case or not, whether it is R0 or not, etc. should also be described.
2) Why are there so few laparoscopic surgeries in spite of the large number of Stage I cases?
3) The journal name in reference 28 is incorrect.
4) The year in reference 31 is wrong.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score as a predictive marker for short-term
complications following gastrectomy of gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 2 Date: 04 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors have reported that preoperative CONUT was associated with the postoperative
complications of gastric cancer patients. There were some weak points in this study. First of all,
this paper does not follow the general formatting guidelines. It is not double-spaced, and there
is no mention of line and page numbering. Second, it has little something new. Lin JX, et al.
have already reported that CONUT score was associated with post-gastrectomy complications.
The authors should be cited for the article by Lin JX, et al.
Lin JX, et al. Which nutritional scoring system is more suitable for evaluating the short- or long-
term prognosis of patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy? J Gastrointest
Surg. 2020 Sep;24(9):1969-1977.
Minor comments
1) The Patients section of Methods should be described in more detail. The inclusion criteria
such as whether it is a surgical case or not, whether it is R0 or not, etc. should also be described.
2) Why are there so few laparoscopic surgeries in spite of the large number of Stage I cases?
3) The journal name in reference 28 is incorrect.
4) The year in reference 31 is wrong.
assistant