Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Diagnostic Performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI versus Multidetector CT in  
the assessment of colorectal liver metastases compared to hepatic resection  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there  a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the  
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistic s in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POT ENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript describes the results of a retrospective study to 
investigate the diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI compared to 
Multidetector CT in the assessment of colorectal liver metastases with the gold stand ard of 
hepatic resection. The manuscript is valuable and adds to our current knowledge about imaging 
of hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer. However, it warrants some revisions before further 
consideration.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
- There is no backgrou nd information or description of the problem to support the study rationale 
in the abstract. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add one 
or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study topic, to 
highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the abstract 
readers.  
 
- Instead of using "Material and methods" please use "Patients and Methods".  
 
- I would add "colorectal cancer" to the list of key words.  
 
- Several sentences at the lead of the introduction section are not directly relevant to the topic 
and mainly discuss the prevalence of colorectal cancer and its survival. I would remove these 
irrelevant discussion to shorten the manuscript and more speci fically focus on the study 
objective.  
 
- The results section is too long, which is due to the fact that data in tables and figures are 
repeated verbatim in the text. Please make sure that your text is not redundant with your 
tables/figures.  
 
- You have menti oned "the control group not underwent to liver explain". The sentence is vague. 
Please consider revision.  
 
- I think the following conclusion needs revision "therefore, in this setting we think that EOB -Gd 
MRI is the gold standard". The gold standard probab ly remains histopathology. but MRI is the 
most reliable imaging modality.  
 
- I suggest adding a statement with a few directions for future research that are supported by your 
current results and would benefit the field.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he authors.  
 
No 
 
Are 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 further  
assessment 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:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followi ng 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 this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any st ocks 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 compet ing 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative  Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along wi th the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Diagnostic Performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI versus Multidetector CT in  
the assessment of colorectal liver metastases compared to hepatic resection  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there  a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the  
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistic s in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POT ENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript describes the results of a retrospective study to 
investigate the diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI compared to 
Multidetector CT in the assessment of colorectal liver metastases with the gold stand ard of 
hepatic resection. The manuscript is valuable and adds to our current knowledge about imaging 
of hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer. However, it warrants some revisions before further 
consideration.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
- There is no backgrou nd information or description of the problem to support the study rationale 
in the abstract. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add one 
or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study topic, to 
highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the abstract 
readers.  
 
- Instead of using "Material and methods" please use "Patients and Methods".  
 
- I would add "colorectal cancer" to the list of key words.  
 
- Several sentences at the lead of the introduction section are not directly relevant to the topic 
and mainly discuss the prevalence of colorectal cancer and its survival. I would remove these 
irrelevant discussion to shorten the manuscript and more speci fically focus on the study 
objective.  
 
- The results section is too long, which is due to the fact that data in tables and figures are 
repeated verbatim in the text. Please make sure that your text is not redundant with your 
tables/figures.  
 
- You have menti oned "the control group not underwent to liver explain". The sentence is vague. 
Please consider revision.  
 
- I think the following conclusion needs revision "therefore, in this setting we think that EOB -Gd 
MRI is the gold standard". The gold standard probab ly remains histopathology. but MRI is the 
most reliable imaging modality.  
 
- I suggest adding a statement with a few directions for future research that are supported by your 
current results and would benefit the field.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he authors.  
 
No 
 
Are 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 further  
assessment 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:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followi ng 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 this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any st ocks 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 compet ing 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative  Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along wi th the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Diagnostic Performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI versus Multidetector CT in  
the assessment of colorectal liver metastases compared to hepatic resection  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jun 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there  a clear objective that addresses a testable research 
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?  
Yes - there is a clear objective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the  
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow 
confidence in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistic s in the manuscript appropriate?  
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
No - there are minor issues  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POT ENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically 
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript describes the results of a retrospective study to 
investigate the diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI compared to 
Multidetector CT in the assessment of colorectal liver metastases with the gold stand ard of 
hepatic resection. The manuscript is valuable and adds to our current knowledge about imaging 
of hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer. However, it warrants some revisions before further 
consideration.  
 
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
 
- There is no backgrou nd information or description of the problem to support the study rationale 
in the abstract. You have only mentioned the study objectives in your abstract. I would add one 
or two sentences as the lead of the abstract to provide an introduction to the main study topic, to 
highlight the gap in knowledge and the motivation or rationale for the study for the abstract 
readers.  
 
- Instead of using "Material and methods" please use "Patients and Methods".  
 
- I would add "colorectal cancer" to the list of key words.  
 
- Several sentences at the lead of the introduction section are not directly relevant to the topic 
and mainly discuss the prevalence of colorectal cancer and its survival. I would remove these 
irrelevant discussion to shorten the manuscript and more speci fically focus on the study 
objective.  
 
- The results section is too long, which is due to the fact that data in tables and figures are 
repeated verbatim in the text. Please make sure that your text is not redundant with your 
tables/figures.  
 
- You have menti oned "the control group not underwent to liver explain". The sentence is vague. 
Please consider revision.  
 
- I think the following conclusion needs revision "therefore, in this setting we think that EOB -Gd 
MRI is the gold standard". The gold standard probab ly remains histopathology. but MRI is the 
most reliable imaging modality.  
 
- I suggest adding a statement with a few directions for future research that are supported by your 
current results and would benefit the field.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he authors.  
 
No 
 
Are 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 further  
assessment 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:  
 
Acce ptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followi ng 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 this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any st ocks 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 compet ing 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.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with  
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for these reviews. This reviewer has  
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative  Commons Attribution License  
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along wi th the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant