Review for 10.1186/s12876-019-1155-1 (2020)

Reviewer’s report
Title:  Non-Selective Beta Blocker Use is associated with Improved Short-term Survival in Patients
with Cirrhosis Referred for Liver Transplantation
Version: 0 Date: 05 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Reviewer 2
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several testable
research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION  -  Is  the  current  interpretation/discussion  of  the  results  reasonable  and  not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for
you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further revisions be
made to make the work technically sound?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The present paper is a single centre observational study on the use of NSBB
in  patients  with  end  stage  liver  disease  undergoing  transplant  assessment.  The  paper  has  been
previously reviewed and present manuscript incorporates the previous set of reviewer's comments.
From my perspective the manuscript is well written and does well to summarize the data surrounding
the patient cohort they have analysed.
All previous reviewers' comments have been addressed.
In the discussion they clearly highlight all the limitations of their data.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
One of their conclusions is that the tolerance of NSBB is a surrogate marker of hemodynamic reserve.
If they have any objective data from time of transplant assessment e.g CPET, it would be of interest to
see if there is any difference between the 2 groups of NSBB v non NSBB.
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.
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 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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with declared
or  apparent  competing  interests  are  not  utilized  for  these  reviews.  This  reviewer  has  agreed  to
publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to
Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review  within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation.
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 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