Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 11 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have been responsive to the comments and made
changes to the paper. The manuscript has been improved. I checked the protocol (after
translating) and it generally seems to match the paper. I have no further comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This paper merely describes a study protocol. I have no further comments. It would be useful
for the authors to publish the study protocol as supplementary material with the paper.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 11 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have been responsive to the comments and made
changes to the paper. The manuscript has been improved. I checked the protocol (after
translating) and it generally seems to match the paper. I have no further comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This paper merely describes a study protocol. I have no further comments. It would be useful
for the authors to publish the study protocol as supplementary material with the paper.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Evaluation of clinical effects of a multidisciplinary-collaborated cancer support team
for gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy: prospective observational study protocol of M-CAST
study
Version: 11 Date: 23 May 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
N/A - no experiments or analyses
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
N/A - there are no statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
N/A - no results to interpret
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have been responsive to the comments and made
changes to the paper. The manuscript has been improved. I checked the protocol (after
translating) and it generally seems to match the paper. I have no further comments.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This paper merely describes a study protocol. I have no further comments. It would be useful
for the authors to publish the study protocol as supplementary material with the paper.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I have no further comments.
assistant