Reviewer's report
Title:Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: A study of 2007
patients over 10 years
Version: 1Date:24 April 2012
Reviewer: Matthias J. Bahr
Reviewer's report:
- The study is presented as prospective. However, substantial proportions of the
data were gathered retrospectively (e.g. coagulation parameters.
- Introduction: Some points are clearly overstated. There is, for example, no
paucity of quantitative data on liver biopsy, though we still need more data.
- Introduction: Incorrect presentation of the context of references (e.g. ref. 2
represents an AASLD position paper not a clinical study).
- Relevant references were not cited (e.g. WEST J, CARD TR.
GASTROENTEROLOGY 2010; 139: 1230-1237 | SEEFF LB et al. CLIN
GASTROENTEROL HEPATOL 2010; 8: 877-883)
- Methods, nomenclature: Can be substantially shortened.
- Methods, patient selection: Data presentation should be focused on liver
biopsy.
- Results: Patient ages ranged from 3 months to 96 years. It appears
inappropriate to have small children in the study. These patients should be
analyzed separately.
- Figure 2: Data should be restricted to liver biopsies
- Figures: Data do not benefit from being shown as figures, tables replacing both
figures appear preferable
MINOR
- Thorough revision by a native speaker is recommended.
- Data presentation: significance values (i.e. p-values) should be given using one
valid digit (e.g. p = 0.01 instead of p = 0.0112)
- References should present original titles rather than translations (e.g. ref. 4)
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: A study of 2007
patients over 10 years
Version: 1Date:24 April 2012
Reviewer: Matthias J. Bahr
Reviewer's report:
- The study is presented as prospective. However, substantial proportions of the
data were gathered retrospectively (e.g. coagulation parameters.
- Introduction: Some points are clearly overstated. There is, for example, no
paucity of quantitative data on liver biopsy, though we still need more data.
- Introduction: Incorrect presentation of the context of references (e.g. ref. 2
represents an AASLD position paper not a clinical study).
- Relevant references were not cited (e.g. WEST J, CARD TR.
GASTROENTEROLOGY 2010; 139: 1230-1237 | SEEFF LB et al. CLIN
GASTROENTEROL HEPATOL 2010; 8: 877-883)
- Methods, nomenclature: Can be substantially shortened.
- Methods, patient selection: Data presentation should be focused on liver
biopsy.
- Results: Patient ages ranged from 3 months to 96 years. It appears
inappropriate to have small children in the study. These patients should be
analyzed separately.
- Figure 2: Data should be restricted to liver biopsies
- Figures: Data do not benefit from being shown as figures, tables replacing both
figures appear preferable
MINOR
- Thorough revision by a native speaker is recommended.
- Data presentation: significance values (i.e. p-values) should be given using one
valid digit (e.g. p = 0.01 instead of p = 0.0112)
- References should present original titles rather than translations (e.g. ref. 4)
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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:Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: A study of 2007
patients over 10 years
Version: 1Date:24 April 2012
Reviewer: Matthias J. Bahr
Reviewer's report:
- The study is presented as prospective. However, substantial proportions of the
data were gathered retrospectively (e.g. coagulation parameters.
- Introduction: Some points are clearly overstated. There is, for example, no
paucity of quantitative data on liver biopsy, though we still need more data.
- Introduction: Incorrect presentation of the context of references (e.g. ref. 2
represents an AASLD position paper not a clinical study).
- Relevant references were not cited (e.g. WEST J, CARD TR.
GASTROENTEROLOGY 2010; 139: 1230-1237 | SEEFF LB et al. CLIN
GASTROENTEROL HEPATOL 2010; 8: 877-883)
- Methods, nomenclature: Can be substantially shortened.
- Methods, patient selection: Data presentation should be focused on liver
biopsy.
- Results: Patient ages ranged from 3 months to 96 years. It appears
inappropriate to have small children in the study. These patients should be
analyzed separately.
- Figure 2: Data should be restricted to liver biopsies
- Figures: Data do not benefit from being shown as figures, tables replacing both
figures appear preferable
MINOR
- Thorough revision by a native speaker is recommended.
- Data presentation: significance values (i.e. p-values) should be given using one
valid digit (e.g. p = 0.01 instead of p = 0.0112)
- References should present original titles rather than translations (e.g. ref. 4)
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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