Title: Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the prevalence of complications following liver
transplantation
Version: 2 Date: 03 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed with pleasure a the  manuscript titled "Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the
prevalence of complications following liver transplantation" . The paper evaluates associations
between preoperative serum prealbumin and post-LT complications. I have made some
considerations in order to  improve the quality of evidence provided by the manuscript:
1. Introduction section
- Line 77: when the authors mentioned "nutrition" and post-LT complications: Do they use the
word "nutrition" with the meaning of "nutritional status"? If it is the case, maybe it would be
interesting to consider the idea of using "nutritional status" instead. In order to make it clearer
for the readers.
- Line 83: as a negative acute phase protein it is questionable wether prealbumin is a good
nutritional status marker.
- Line 92: Is it acceptable to state the conclusion at the end of the Introduction section?
2. Results section
- Line 143: It is explained the patiets were categorised according the cut-off points of prealbumin.
Should not this explanation be at the Methods section?
- Lines 167,168: same comment as mentioned above.
3. Discussion section:
- Prealbumin is a negative acute phase protein, and it was briefly stated at the limitation
considerations. Maybe it would be interesting to describe its role at the methods section.
4. Tables:
- Table 1 there are two groups: low x normal prealbumin. On Table 3 the same groups are called:
low x high prealbumin. Maybe it would be interesting to standardise it.
- Table 1: It would be interesting to see prealbumin values on Table 1.
With Regards,
Reviewer
Title: Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the prevalence of complications following liver
transplantation
Version: 2 Date: 03 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed with pleasure a the  manuscript titled "Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the
prevalence of complications following liver transplantation" . The paper evaluates associations
between preoperative serum prealbumin and post-LT complications. I have made some
considerations in order to  improve the quality of evidence provided by the manuscript:
1. Introduction section
- Line 77: when the authors mentioned "nutrition" and post-LT complications: Do they use the
word "nutrition" with the meaning of "nutritional status"? If it is the case, maybe it would be
interesting to consider the idea of using "nutritional status" instead. In order to make it clearer
for the readers.
- Line 83: as a negative acute phase protein it is questionable wether prealbumin is a good
nutritional status marker.
- Line 92: Is it acceptable to state the conclusion at the end of the Introduction section?
2. Results section
- Line 143: It is explained the patiets were categorised according the cut-off points of prealbumin.
Should not this explanation be at the Methods section?
- Lines 167,168: same comment as mentioned above.
3. Discussion section:
- Prealbumin is a negative acute phase protein, and it was briefly stated at the limitation
considerations. Maybe it would be interesting to describe its role at the methods section.
4. Tables:
- Table 1 there are two groups: low x normal prealbumin. On Table 3 the same groups are called:
low x high prealbumin. Maybe it would be interesting to standardise it.
- Table 1: It would be interesting to see prealbumin values on Table 1.
With Regards,
Reviewer
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the prevalence of complications following liver
transplantation
Version: 2 Date: 03 Apr 2021
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed with pleasure a the  manuscript titled "Low preoperative prealbumin predicts the
prevalence of complications following liver transplantation" . The paper evaluates associations
between preoperative serum prealbumin and post-LT complications. I have made some
considerations in order to  improve the quality of evidence provided by the manuscript:
1. Introduction section
- Line 77: when the authors mentioned "nutrition" and post-LT complications: Do they use the
word "nutrition" with the meaning of "nutritional status"? If it is the case, maybe it would be
interesting to consider the idea of using "nutritional status" instead. In order to make it clearer
for the readers.
- Line 83: as a negative acute phase protein it is questionable wether prealbumin is a good
nutritional status marker.
- Line 92: Is it acceptable to state the conclusion at the end of the Introduction section?
2. Results section
- Line 143: It is explained the patiets were categorised according the cut-off points of prealbumin.
Should not this explanation be at the Methods section?
- Lines 167,168: same comment as mentioned above.
3. Discussion section:
- Prealbumin is a negative acute phase protein, and it was briefly stated at the limitation
considerations. Maybe it would be interesting to describe its role at the methods section.
4. Tables:
- Table 1 there are two groups: low x normal prealbumin. On Table 3 the same groups are called:
low x high prealbumin. Maybe it would be interesting to standardise it.
- Table 1: It would be interesting to see prealbumin values on Table 1.
With Regards,
Reviewer
assistant