Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1036-7 (2019)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Diagnostic Performance of gadoxetic acid -enhanced liver MRI versus Multidetector CT in  
the assessment of colorectal liver metastases compared to hepatic resection  
 
Version: 0 Date: 26 Feb 2018  
 
Reviewer: Pål Dag Line  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
This is an interesting study comparing the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and MDCT in colorectal 
liver metastasis (CRLM).  The authors have performed a fairly large and labor demanding study, 
which confirms the superiority of MRI as the best imaging modality for detecting CRLM.  As 
such, this is not at novel finding, but the paper brings some other topics such as sub capsular 
lesions and the problem of chemotherapy associated liver injury that are we ll described.  Overall 
the presentation is clear.  The article could be shortened somewhat, particularly in the discussion 
and conclusion where repeating issues are noted. There are som typing errors and sentences that 
are hard to interpret, like on page 1 5, line 12 -17 
 
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.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to t he authors.  
 
Yes 
 
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 a ble to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the followi ng 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 st ocks 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 compet ing 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.  
 
None  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
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 wi th the authors'  
responses. 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/ ). 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