Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0812-0 (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: The values of applying classification and counts of white blood cells to t he prognostic 
evaluation of resectable gastric cancers  
 
Version: 0 Date: 23 Mar 2018  
 
Reviewer: Abdullah Yeniova  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Please include all comments for the authors in this box rather than uploading your report as an 
attachment. Please only upload as attachments annotated versions of manuscripts, graphs, 
supporting materi als or other aspects of your report which cannot be included in a text format.  
Please overwrite this text when adding your comments to the authors.  
This manuscript searched the predictive value of classifications and counts of WBC, including 
lymphocyte (L Y), monocyte (MO), neutrophil (NE), eosinophil (EO), and basophil (BA) in the 
prognosis of resectable gastric cancers (GCs). I assessed the manuscript   
There are several concerns about the manuscript  
 
Major Comment  
1) Authors stated that "Surgery significan tly decreased the level of NE count, but increased the 
level of EO, whereas had no effect on the levels of LY, MO, NE or total WBC" in abstract.  
 While in page 6 and line 5 -6 it is written "surgery decreased the count of NE, but increased the 
count of EO, whereas had no significant impact on the count of LY, MO, BA or total WBC. 
Maybe authors may write BA instead of NE in main text.  
 
2) In Table 1 patients characteristics were detailed. It is seen that there are statistically 
differences between groups but authors did not mention these results and did not discussed in 
the discussion session. Also they have to mention that if they include these statistics to 
multivariate cox regression. Because it is understood  that this table is only for descriptive 
charact eristics of patients but in results session authors stated that AJCC stage is an 
independent predictive factor. So authors must discuss these results.  
 
3) Which parameters were included multivariate cox regression? It is understood that authors 
only includ ed parameters which was found P < 0.05. It will be suitable that authors will 
include all parameters which was found P < 0.1 for a study like this. For example p value of 
the data which searched the effect of low or high LO  on overall survival was found j ust 
equal to 0.05. If values below 0.1 are included into multivariate analyse results may change. 
If authors included paramters which were below 0.1 they must mention it in methods  
 
4) How did authors decide the cut off values of  lymphocyte (LY), monocyte (MO), neutrophil 
(NE), eosinophil (EO), and basophil (BA) when they set the low and high account groups? 
Authors must mention this issue in material and methods  
 
5) In page 4, "Blood sample" section authors explain the method of measurement of WBC 
subtypes.  It is understood that all samples were taken in 6.30 amd 7.30 am but authors 
declared that this study was designed as retrospectively. How can be authors  sure that all 
samples were taken according to this method because this is a retrospective study.  
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 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 manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
  
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 shar es 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 rec eived 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 interest s 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  
 
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 with the author s' 
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