Deng Y, Jiang Y, Jiang T, Chen L, Mou HJ, Tuo BG, Shi GQ. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation in the treatment of bleeding from mild to moderate gastric varices type 1 . World J Gastroenterol 2024; 30(5): 440-449 [PMID: 38414583 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i5.440]
Reader's ID:
07858357
Submitted on:
February 20, 2024, 21:27
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
I enjoyed reading the manuscript Development and validation of a prediction model for early screening of people at high risk for colorectal cancer by Xu et al. Generally speaking, the background, aims, methods, results, and conclusions were clear and well-executed. There were a few word choices that may not have reflected the sentiment as thoroughly as intended. For example, in the background of the abstract, I don't know if I would describe CRC as a "threat", but maybe a "serious condition with significant mortality"; rather than the current "situation" of early screening, maybe "state" instead; and rather than describing early screening as "not optimistic", instead saying "not ideal". In the results section of the abstract, I would omit the word "information" after "family history". These are very minute remarks, but clearer language would optimize the quality of the abstract.
I applaud the manuscript for the size of the population studied; however, I think the results would be clearer if commas were used for numbers larger than 999.
The introduction provided nice background into the state of CRC screening specific to the population of the study. I enjoyed the inclusion of the study on the diagnostic delays in southern China; however, I'm not sure much was added with the inclusion of the cross-sectional study on CRC knowledge and awareness in the Caribbean as this population is vastly different from that of the study. Again, a small comment on language: I wouldn't describe colonoscopic screening as not "popular", but rather not "routine" or "widely accepted by the general public". The intention of the statement was clear, but I think better language could have been used.
I thought the methods section was thorough and explained each component of the study very well. Another small language comment on "Drinking alcohol". I would say "alcohol use" instead.
The results were interesting and displayed nicely in the tables and figures. In the very last sentence of this section, I don't know what "DCA" is, and I didn't see it defined anywhere else in the paper, although it's possible I missed it.
I thought the discussion was the strongest section of the manuscript. The results were contextualized well with commentary on the existing literature and framed in the setting of existing data on CRC screening. The implications of the findings on actions that could improve clinical diagnosis in order to reduce poor outcomes were well-communicated.
Reply from the Editorial Office:
First, thank you very much for your professional comments on the article published in World Journal of Gastroenterology.
Second, we read your comments with great interest. You are welcome to format your valuable comments into a Letter to the Editor and submit it online to World Journal of Gastroenterology at https://www.f6publishing.com. There are no restrictions on the number of words, figures (color, B/W) or authors for a Letter to the Editor. In addition, the article processing charge will be exempted for this Letter to the Editor. As with all articles published by the Baishideng Publishing Group, the Letter to the Editor will be published online after completing peer review. The guidelines for a Letter to the Editor can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/219.
Finally, we look forward to receiving your high-quality Letter to the Editor, which will promote academic communication and lead the development of this discipline.
Reader's ID:
04031698
Submitted on:
February 20, 2024, 08:48
Reader Expertise:
Reader’s expertise on the topic of the manuscript
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement:
Does the reader have a conflict of interest?
Reader Comment Standards for Published Articles:
1 Title
Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript?
2 Abstract
Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?
3 Key Words
Do the key words reflect the focus of the manuscript?
4 Background
Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status and significance of the study?
5 Methods
Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, and clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail?
6 Results
Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study?
Has the study made meaningful contributions towards research progress in this field?
7 Discussion
Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly and logically?
Are the findings and their applicability/relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner?
Is the Discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
8 Illustrations and Tables
Are the figures, diagrams and tables sufficient, good quality and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents?
Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., or better legends?
9 Biostatistics
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of biostatistics?
10 Units
Does the manuscript meet the requirements of use of SI units?
11 References
Does the manuscript appropriately cite the latest, important and authoritative references in the Introduction and Discussion sections?
Does the author self-cite, omit, incorrectly cite and/or over-cite references?
12 Quality of manuscript organization and presentation
Is the manuscript concisely and coherently organized and presented?
Are the style, language and grammar accurate and appropriate?
13 Ethics statements
For all manuscripts involving human studies and/or animal experiments, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were reviewed and approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?
Scientific Quality:
The overall quality of the manuscript, based on the above-listed criteria, should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories
Language Quality:
Language quality (style, grammar, and spelling) should be evaluated and classified according to the following five categories.
Reader Comments:
very good
Reply from the Editorial Office:
Thank you very much for your comments.