Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01802-9 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Schistosoma mansoni-related periportal fibrosis; can we use APRI and
PSDR levels in the real-time selection of patients for targeted endoscopy in a
resource-limited setting? A case-control study
Version: 
0 
Date: 
25 Jul 2020
Reviewer's report:
This is a cross-sectional study of patients with schistosoma mansoni related
periportal fibrosis. 250 patients were included in this study, 109 of them
presented with varices and 141 did not. AST to platelet count ratio index (APRI)
and platelet to splenic diameter ration (PSDR) levels were assessed and were
compared between patients with or without esophageal varices. The authors
found that the presence of EVs was independently associated with higher median
APRI and lower PSDR levels in patients with periportal fibrosis.
Major issue
1. The major disadvantage of this article was the lack of HVPG, the portal
pressure plays an important role in the presence of esophageal varices. Please
supplement relevant data.
2. The title was too long and consisted of some inappropriate expressions. For
example, "real-time" may be better than "well-time" and the word "clinic-base"
repeated the expression. Please modify them.
3. In abstract, the conclusion was not suitable, since the diagnosis of periportal
fibrosis was not confirmed by liver biopsy. Although you mentioned "the
diagnosis of PPF was made sonographically", this method had obvious
disadvantages in diagnosing. More detailed data about liver biopsy was needed. 
4. The data in table 2 should be arranged in a fourfold table. Besides, the analytic
statistics method used in table 2 was incorrect. Please reanalyze. 
5. In table 3, both APRI and PSDR are measurement data, why was the former
presented as measurement data, while the latter presented as numeration data?
6. Please describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the method section. Will
hepatitis B virus or alcohol use influence the outcomes? Why was the proportion
of alcohol use in patients with EV lower than those without EV(41.3% vs
55.3%)?
7. I suppose the author could assess the potential utility of a combination of the
APRI and PSDR levels as the predictive value. Please discuss it if possible.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes