Title: Surface Area Outcomes in EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Comparative Study of Franseen
and Fork-tip Needles
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. According to the text (Results section, paragraph 2), the total hepatic tissue area in the two
groups was reported as an average of 22.0 mm² (range: 0.1–49.7 mm²) and 22.6 mm² (range:
7.5–47.8 mm²). However, in Table 3, the total hepatic tissue area in the two groups is presented
as median (IQR) 22.0 (0.1–49.7) vs. 22.6 (7.5–47.8). Since the range and IQR are identical,
could you please confirm this? The same issue appears to exist in the maximum hepatic tissue
area, total number of portal tracts, and other related variables.
2. How is the liver surface area defined? Are blood clots or adipose tissue within or surrounding
the tissue core included in the measurement? Was the measurement performed manually or
automatically?
3. How was the final diagnosis established? For example, in the Franseen-Tip group, three
patients (15%) were diagnosed with non-specific inflammatory changes. Would obtaining a
larger tissue sample have led to a more definitive diagnosis?
4. In the Methods section, the authors mentioned that the slow-pull technique was used for
the third biopsy when there was inadequate tissue yield or significant blood contamination in
the samples after the first two biopsies. How was 'inadequate tissue yield' defined? Was it
determined by ROSE or MOSE?
Title: Surface Area Outcomes in EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Comparative Study of Franseen
and Fork-tip Needles
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. According to the text (Results section, paragraph 2), the total hepatic tissue area in the two
groups was reported as an average of 22.0 mm² (range: 0.1–49.7 mm²) and 22.6 mm² (range:
7.5–47.8 mm²). However, in Table 3, the total hepatic tissue area in the two groups is presented
as median (IQR) 22.0 (0.1–49.7) vs. 22.6 (7.5–47.8). Since the range and IQR are identical,
could you please confirm this? The same issue appears to exist in the maximum hepatic tissue
area, total number of portal tracts, and other related variables.
2. How is the liver surface area defined? Are blood clots or adipose tissue within or surrounding
the tissue core included in the measurement? Was the measurement performed manually or
automatically?
3. How was the final diagnosis established? For example, in the Franseen-Tip group, three
patients (15%) were diagnosed with non-specific inflammatory changes. Would obtaining a
larger tissue sample have led to a more definitive diagnosis?
4. In the Methods section, the authors mentioned that the slow-pull technique was used for
the third biopsy when there was inadequate tissue yield or significant blood contamination in
the samples after the first two biopsies. How was 'inadequate tissue yield' defined? Was it
determined by ROSE or MOSE?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Surface Area Outcomes in EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Comparative Study of Franseen
and Fork-tip Needles
Version: 2 Date: 06 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. According to the text (Results section, paragraph 2), the total hepatic tissue area in the two
groups was reported as an average of 22.0 mm² (range: 0.1–49.7 mm²) and 22.6 mm² (range:
7.5–47.8 mm²). However, in Table 3, the total hepatic tissue area in the two groups is presented
as median (IQR) 22.0 (0.1–49.7) vs. 22.6 (7.5–47.8). Since the range and IQR are identical,
could you please confirm this? The same issue appears to exist in the maximum hepatic tissue
area, total number of portal tracts, and other related variables.
2. How is the liver surface area defined? Are blood clots or adipose tissue within or surrounding
the tissue core included in the measurement? Was the measurement performed manually or
automatically?
3. How was the final diagnosis established? For example, in the Franseen-Tip group, three
patients (15%) were diagnosed with non-specific inflammatory changes. Would obtaining a
larger tissue sample have led to a more definitive diagnosis?
4. In the Methods section, the authors mentioned that the slow-pull technique was used for
the third biopsy when there was inadequate tissue yield or significant blood contamination in
the samples after the first two biopsies. How was 'inadequate tissue yield' defined? Was it
determined by ROSE or MOSE?
assistant