Title: Management of type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors: An 11-year retrospective single-
center study
Version: 4 Date: 06 Nov 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: Yes, the authors answered all my questions and comments. They
also made sustantial changes to improve the clarity of the manuscript. I also read carefully the
comments of other reviewers and I agree with their questions and the answers of the authors.
This version is better.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I still think that commenting regarding chinese herbal medicine, thats is not the standard in the
rest of the world and has limited evidence with few clinical trials is not relevant to the evidence
and limits the external application of the results
Title: Management of type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors: An 11-year retrospective single-
center study
Version: 4 Date: 06 Nov 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: Yes, the authors answered all my questions and comments. They
also made sustantial changes to improve the clarity of the manuscript. I also read carefully the
comments of other reviewers and I agree with their questions and the answers of the authors.
This version is better.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I still think that commenting regarding chinese herbal medicine, thats is not the standard in the
rest of the world and has limited evidence with few clinical trials is not relevant to the evidence
and limits the external application of the results
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Management of type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors: An 11-year retrospective single-
center study
Version: 4 Date: 06 Nov 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?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: Yes, the authors answered all my questions and comments. They
also made sustantial changes to improve the clarity of the manuscript. I also read carefully the
comments of other reviewers and I agree with their questions and the answers of the authors.
This version is better.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
I still think that commenting regarding chinese herbal medicine, thats is not the standard in the
rest of the world and has limited evidence with few clinical trials is not relevant to the evidence
and limits the external application of the results
assistant