Title: Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach for TACE: A Retrospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the corrections and revisions made. A lot of my questions have been answered
and the manuscript is clearer in its methods, results and discussion. A few notes:
- I would consider omitting the TACE data that were performed in conjunction with ablation.
The data is likely skewed when there is the addition of a complete separate procedure for the
same lesion, and this may not be valid (and overall may make your conclusions weaker).  There
should be a compelling reason why this data was included. Since there were so few of these
cases, it should not affect the conclusions too dramatically.
-In the results section under "efficacy," would recommend explicitly writing out the statistics
and data even though it is represented in the figures. This will make it clearer for the conclusion
(and also this seems to be the crux of the paper)
- Thank you for clarifying the arterial spasm definition. This makes it a lot clearer in the
discussion as well.  I also noted your manuscript did a good job with limitations and noting that
although you hypothesized arterial spasm could be the reason for tumor progression, the study
was not powered for that.
Overall, very interesting observations and I look forward to the next step in these study cohorts!
Title: Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach for TACE: A Retrospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the corrections and revisions made. A lot of my questions have been answered
and the manuscript is clearer in its methods, results and discussion. A few notes:
- I would consider omitting the TACE data that were performed in conjunction with ablation.
The data is likely skewed when there is the addition of a complete separate procedure for the
same lesion, and this may not be valid (and overall may make your conclusions weaker).  There
should be a compelling reason why this data was included. Since there were so few of these
cases, it should not affect the conclusions too dramatically.
-In the results section under "efficacy," would recommend explicitly writing out the statistics
and data even though it is represented in the figures. This will make it clearer for the conclusion
(and also this seems to be the crux of the paper)
- Thank you for clarifying the arterial spasm definition. This makes it a lot clearer in the
discussion as well.  I also noted your manuscript did a good job with limitations and noting that
although you hypothesized arterial spasm could be the reason for tumor progression, the study
was not powered for that.
Overall, very interesting observations and I look forward to the next step in these study cohorts!
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Transradial versus Transfemoral Approach for TACE: A Retrospective Study
Version: 2 Date: 27 Dec 2022
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the corrections and revisions made. A lot of my questions have been answered
and the manuscript is clearer in its methods, results and discussion. A few notes:
- I would consider omitting the TACE data that were performed in conjunction with ablation.
The data is likely skewed when there is the addition of a complete separate procedure for the
same lesion, and this may not be valid (and overall may make your conclusions weaker).  There
should be a compelling reason why this data was included. Since there were so few of these
cases, it should not affect the conclusions too dramatically.
-In the results section under "efficacy," would recommend explicitly writing out the statistics
and data even though it is represented in the figures. This will make it clearer for the conclusion
(and also this seems to be the crux of the paper)
- Thank you for clarifying the arterial spasm definition. This makes it a lot clearer in the
discussion as well.  I also noted your manuscript did a good job with limitations and noting that
although you hypothesized arterial spasm could be the reason for tumor progression, the study
was not powered for that.
Overall, very interesting observations and I look forward to the next step in these study cohorts!
assistant