Title: Predictive Scoring Systems for In-hospital Mortality due to Acutely Decompensated Liver
Cirrhosis in Indonesia
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a new score, to predict in-hospital mortality in cirrhosis patients. The
identified parameters are in line with recent studies and therefore somehow "expected".
However, some aspects need to be addressed:
- Methods: Some aspects should be described in more detail, especially, what does "missing
data" in the exclusion criteria mean? The authors stated that MELD or ACLF could not be
calculated due to missing data in the included patients?
- Methods: Why are some continuous data transformed into natural logarithm and some (e.g.
SpO2/FiO2) catagorized? How was the cut-off determined?
- Results: Do the authors have information on CRP levels? Was a screening for bacterial
infehcions performed in all patients or only, if clinically indicated?
- Results: The rate on GI-bleeding in surprisingly high. What was the definition of GI Bleeding
in the context of the study and what were the etiologies of bleeding (varicceal bleeding, peptic
ulcer etc).
- A major aspect in interpreting the data and to asses clinical benefit, it would be great to compare
the proposed score to established scores like MELD or ACLF grade. Unfortunately these data
are not available to the authors.
- Addative scoring system: What was the reason to use exactly these categorizations? Was it
based on statistical methods or other aspects?
Title: Predictive Scoring Systems for In-hospital Mortality due to Acutely Decompensated Liver
Cirrhosis in Indonesia
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a new score, to predict in-hospital mortality in cirrhosis patients. The
identified parameters are in line with recent studies and therefore somehow "expected".
However, some aspects need to be addressed:
- Methods: Some aspects should be described in more detail, especially, what does "missing
data" in the exclusion criteria mean? The authors stated that MELD or ACLF could not be
calculated due to missing data in the included patients?
- Methods: Why are some continuous data transformed into natural logarithm and some (e.g.
SpO2/FiO2) catagorized? How was the cut-off determined?
- Results: Do the authors have information on CRP levels? Was a screening for bacterial
infehcions performed in all patients or only, if clinically indicated?
- Results: The rate on GI-bleeding in surprisingly high. What was the definition of GI Bleeding
in the context of the study and what were the etiologies of bleeding (varicceal bleeding, peptic
ulcer etc).
- A major aspect in interpreting the data and to asses clinical benefit, it would be great to compare
the proposed score to established scores like MELD or ACLF grade. Unfortunately these data
are not available to the authors.
- Addative scoring system: What was the reason to use exactly these categorizations? Was it
based on statistical methods or other aspects?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Predictive Scoring Systems for In-hospital Mortality due to Acutely Decompensated Liver
Cirrhosis in Indonesia
Version: 4 Date: 21 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe a new score, to predict in-hospital mortality in cirrhosis patients. The
identified parameters are in line with recent studies and therefore somehow "expected".
However, some aspects need to be addressed:
- Methods: Some aspects should be described in more detail, especially, what does "missing
data" in the exclusion criteria mean? The authors stated that MELD or ACLF could not be
calculated due to missing data in the included patients?
- Methods: Why are some continuous data transformed into natural logarithm and some (e.g.
SpO2/FiO2) catagorized? How was the cut-off determined?
- Results: Do the authors have information on CRP levels? Was a screening for bacterial
infehcions performed in all patients or only, if clinically indicated?
- Results: The rate on GI-bleeding in surprisingly high. What was the definition of GI Bleeding
in the context of the study and what were the etiologies of bleeding (varicceal bleeding, peptic
ulcer etc).
- A major aspect in interpreting the data and to asses clinical benefit, it would be great to compare
the proposed score to established scores like MELD or ACLF grade. Unfortunately these data
are not available to the authors.
- Addative scoring system: What was the reason to use exactly these categorizations? Was it
based on statistical methods or other aspects?
assistant