Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1090-1 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Partial ALPPS versus Complete ALPPS for Staged Hepatectomy  
 
Version: 0 Date: 10 Jul 2019  
 
Reviewer: Giovanni B Levi Sandri  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I read the meta -analysis on partial alpps vs alpps.  
"Despite ALPPS has the potential of replacing TSH", I think it is an important mistake to write 
something like this. In my point of view, TSH and ALPP S are two different therapeutic options 
for two different patients. If a patient is suitable for TSH, ALPPS should not be performed.  
Authors do not develop the crucial point of ALPPS indication. They cite one time the HCC 
indication which has certainly goo d result comparing to colorectal Mets or biliary tumors. 
However, the results of the 4 studies must be correlated to the type of alpps indication.  
There was difference between the surgical p -ALPPS in the 4 studies? Laparoscopic approach for 
the first step  may decrease the morbidity.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described ? 
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Unable to assess  
 
Are the conclusions drawn adeq uately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscr ipt: 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
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, fund ing, 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, w rite '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  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be include d 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open A ccess Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal