Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:9 February 2010
Reviewer: Guy J Maddern
Reviewer's report:
I believe there are no areas in this manuscript that require significant and
essential revision.
On page 6, second line: RFA has been incorrectly described as FRA. This is a
correction that would need to be made prior to the manuscript being published.
In a number of places within the manuscript some spelling errors have occurred.
The manuscript is well constructed and follows the format of a systematic review.
Its conclusions are well supported by the data.
The topic of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection remains
controversial and the discussion is an important one to have. It is unfortunate that
only one randomised controlled trial exists. It may be useful if the authors were
able to at least look at the different outcomes that occurred with laparoscopic and
percutaneous radiofrequency albation versus open radiofrequency ablation. This
would be an important area to segment and assess whether or not there were
different outcomes associated with the procedures that have greater difficulty in
assessing disseminated involvement within the liver. This would certainly add
further weight to the study.
I would recommend that this be accepted after minor but essential revisions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:9 February 2010
Reviewer: Guy J Maddern
Reviewer's report:
I believe there are no areas in this manuscript that require significant and
essential revision.
On page 6, second line: RFA has been incorrectly described as FRA. This is a
correction that would need to be made prior to the manuscript being published.
In a number of places within the manuscript some spelling errors have occurred.
The manuscript is well constructed and follows the format of a systematic review.
Its conclusions are well supported by the data.
The topic of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection remains
controversial and the discussion is an important one to have. It is unfortunate that
only one randomised controlled trial exists. It may be useful if the authors were
able to at least look at the different outcomes that occurred with laparoscopic and
percutaneous radiofrequency albation versus open radiofrequency ablation. This
would be an important area to segment and assess whether or not there were
different outcomes associated with the procedures that have greater difficulty in
assessing disseminated involvement within the liver. This would certainly add
further weight to the study.
I would recommend that this be accepted after minor but essential revisions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 1Date:9 February 2010
Reviewer: Guy J Maddern
Reviewer's report:
I believe there are no areas in this manuscript that require significant and
essential revision.
On page 6, second line: RFA has been incorrectly described as FRA. This is a
correction that would need to be made prior to the manuscript being published.
In a number of places within the manuscript some spelling errors have occurred.
The manuscript is well constructed and follows the format of a systematic review.
Its conclusions are well supported by the data.
The topic of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection remains
controversial and the discussion is an important one to have. It is unfortunate that
only one randomised controlled trial exists. It may be useful if the authors were
able to at least look at the different outcomes that occurred with laparoscopic and
percutaneous radiofrequency albation versus open radiofrequency ablation. This
would be an important area to segment and assess whether or not there were
different outcomes associated with the procedures that have greater difficulty in
assessing disseminated involvement within the liver. This would certainly add
further weight to the study.
I would recommend that this be accepted after minor but essential revisions.
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests
assistant