Reviewer’ s report
Title: Rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM) improves hemostasis assessment compared to
conventional coagulation test in ACLF and Non-ACLF patients
Version: 0Date: 03 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors aim to examine hemostasis in patients with stable liver cirrhosis (Non-
ACLF) and in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) by conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) andRotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and to further verify the strength of agreement betweenthese two methods.. The authors demonstrated that ROTEM showed superiority to CCT forassessing hemostasis in Non-ACLF and ACLF patients. Overall, the data provided here by theauthors could have interesting implications. Several points need to be considered are listed below:
1. The authors need to include brief introduction of the 5 tests (INTEM, EXTEM, FIBTEM,
APTEM and NATEM) in the Introduction section.2. It would be better to move the Supplemental table 1 as Table 7, because, as the authorsmentioned in the Discussion, the data presented about bleeding events is very interesting.3. In the Discussion section, the authors can discuss the potential applications of ROTEM inpatients with liver cancer.4. The authors need to check the text carefully to correct typos, such as removing the extra '.' andadding 'space' between words.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access
Creative Commons CC-BY License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM) improves hemostasis assessment compared to
conventional coagulation test in ACLF and Non-ACLF patients
Version: 0Date: 03 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors aim to examine hemostasis in patients with stable liver cirrhosis (Non-
ACLF) and in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) by conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) andRotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and to further verify the strength of agreement betweenthese two methods.. The authors demonstrated that ROTEM showed superiority to CCT forassessing hemostasis in Non-ACLF and ACLF patients. Overall, the data provided here by theauthors could have interesting implications. Several points need to be considered are listed below:
1. The authors need to include brief introduction of the 5 tests (INTEM, EXTEM, FIBTEM,
APTEM and NATEM) in the Introduction section.2. It would be better to move the Supplemental table 1 as Table 7, because, as the authorsmentioned in the Discussion, the data presented about bleeding events is very interesting.3. In the Discussion section, the authors can discuss the potential applications of ROTEM inpatients with liver cancer.4. The authors need to check the text carefully to correct typos, such as removing the extra '.' andadding 'space' between words.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access
Creative Commons CC-BY License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’ s report
Title: Rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM) improves hemostasis assessment compared to
conventional coagulation test in ACLF and Non-ACLF patients
Version: 0Date: 03 May 2020
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors aim to examine hemostasis in patients with stable liver cirrhosis (Non-
ACLF) and in acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) by conventional coagulation tests (CCTs) andRotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and to further verify the strength of agreement betweenthese two methods.. The authors demonstrated that ROTEM showed superiority to CCT forassessing hemostasis in Non-ACLF and ACLF patients. Overall, the data provided here by theauthors could have interesting implications. Several points need to be considered are listed below:
1. The authors need to include brief introduction of the 5 tests (INTEM, EXTEM, FIBTEM,
APTEM and NATEM) in the Introduction section.2. It would be better to move the Supplemental table 1 as Table 7, because, as the authorsmentioned in the Discussion, the data presented about bleeding events is very interesting.3. In the Discussion section, the authors can discuss the potential applications of ROTEM inpatients with liver cancer.4. The authors need to check the text carefully to correct typos, such as removing the extra '.' andadding 'space' between words.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
YesDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
YesAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
YesAre you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an
additional statistical review?If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require furtherassessment in your comments to the editors.
I am able to assess the statistics
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
AcceptableDeclaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of thismanuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below.
If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.Reviewer Publication Consent. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access
Creative Commons CC-BY License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) if this manu-script is accepted for publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the publishedreport have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not be published.Ifyou are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial office before completingthe review.If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note you mustdecide whether to include your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision wheneverprompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please do not publish my name with my report.
(default)
assistant