Title: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT combined with contrast-enhanced MRI
for colorectal liver metastases: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking to review this manuscript.
There are many articles that have looked at comparison between MRI and CT for diagnosis of
liver metastases. In this regard the manuscript offers nothing new.
There are several major problems with this study.
Many vague terms are used instead of clear definitions. Terms such as thorough review,
sophisticated case-control matching etc. are too subjective
The reference test is not defined.
It is not clear whether sensitivity and specificity is per lesion or per case.
It is not clear how much time had gone between MRI and CT. Which one was done first if long
time had gone between the scans.
The authors' recommendation to do both RI and CT is not appropriate as a general rule. In a
patient with wide spread disease  and with no doubt about diagnosis on one modality there would
be very little to gain by doing both scans. Conversely in patient who is potential candidate for
curative intent surgery or with inconclusive results on one scan complementary scan is very
useful.
This is a retrospective study. It begs the question why MRI and CT done for these patients
initially? Is this routine at the institution of the authors? or was this chosen because of special
circumstances. The latter case can lead to inclusion bias.
Some minor problems are
The introduction is too long and redundant.
Some reference are too old.
what does both radiologists going through training and calibration exercise mean?
The highest b-value used by the authors was 450 which is somewhat low for liver imaging.
No illustrative images.
There is a lot of repetition of introduction in discussion.
Title: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT combined with contrast-enhanced MRI
for colorectal liver metastases: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking to review this manuscript.
There are many articles that have looked at comparison between MRI and CT for diagnosis of
liver metastases. In this regard the manuscript offers nothing new.
There are several major problems with this study.
Many vague terms are used instead of clear definitions. Terms such as thorough review,
sophisticated case-control matching etc. are too subjective
The reference test is not defined.
It is not clear whether sensitivity and specificity is per lesion or per case.
It is not clear how much time had gone between MRI and CT. Which one was done first if long
time had gone between the scans.
The authors' recommendation to do both RI and CT is not appropriate as a general rule. In a
patient with wide spread disease  and with no doubt about diagnosis on one modality there would
be very little to gain by doing both scans. Conversely in patient who is potential candidate for
curative intent surgery or with inconclusive results on one scan complementary scan is very
useful.
This is a retrospective study. It begs the question why MRI and CT done for these patients
initially? Is this routine at the institution of the authors? or was this chosen because of special
circumstances. The latter case can lead to inclusion bias.
Some minor problems are
The introduction is too long and redundant.
Some reference are too old.
what does both radiologists going through training and calibration exercise mean?
The highest b-value used by the authors was 450 which is somewhat low for liver imaging.
No illustrative images.
There is a lot of repetition of introduction in discussion.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT combined with contrast-enhanced MRI
for colorectal liver metastases: A case-control study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking to review this manuscript.
There are many articles that have looked at comparison between MRI and CT for diagnosis of
liver metastases. In this regard the manuscript offers nothing new.
There are several major problems with this study.
Many vague terms are used instead of clear definitions. Terms such as thorough review,
sophisticated case-control matching etc. are too subjective
The reference test is not defined.
It is not clear whether sensitivity and specificity is per lesion or per case.
It is not clear how much time had gone between MRI and CT. Which one was done first if long
time had gone between the scans.
The authors' recommendation to do both RI and CT is not appropriate as a general rule. In a
patient with wide spread disease  and with no doubt about diagnosis on one modality there would
be very little to gain by doing both scans. Conversely in patient who is potential candidate for
curative intent surgery or with inconclusive results on one scan complementary scan is very
useful.
This is a retrospective study. It begs the question why MRI and CT done for these patients
initially? Is this routine at the institution of the authors? or was this chosen because of special
circumstances. The latter case can lead to inclusion bias.
Some minor problems are
The introduction is too long and redundant.
Some reference are too old.
what does both radiologists going through training and calibration exercise mean?
The highest b-value used by the authors was 450 which is somewhat low for liver imaging.
No illustrative images.
There is a lot of repetition of introduction in discussion.
assistant