Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01439-0 (2020)

Reviewer’ s report
Title: An assessment of chromosomal alterations detected by fluorescence in situ hybridisation in
pancreatobiliary tract malignancy
Version: 2Date: 30 Mar 2020
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?)No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the
objective?No - there are major issues
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?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
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 furtherrevisions be made to make the work technically sound?Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:GENERAL COMMENTS: This study discusses whether the addition of FISH to the cytology of
biliary system improves diagnostic ability (sensitivity, specificity) in diagnosis of pancreaticcarcinomas.
The presentation of data is poor and hard to understand.
I would recommend adding tables and discussions below.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
This study discusses whether the addition of FISH to the cytology of biliary system improves
diagnostic ability (sensitivity, specificity) in diagnosis of pancreatic carcinomas.
The presentation of data is poor and hard to understand.
I would recommend adding tables and discussions below.
One table rows cytology result, column pathology result (as gold standart), cells giving numbers
and percentages. Emphasize sensitivity and specificity here.
Another table
rows adding FISH to cytology result, column pathology result (as gold standart).here define what is positive for (FISH and cytology). Is any of FISH or cytology regarded aspositive test?Then here define sensitivity and specificity.
Then consider defining outcomes of suspicious and atypical cytology with positive FISH cases.
The main problematic area in cytology are these grey categories. And FISH helps clinical decisionin these cases.
To compare the FISH result between cytology and pathology prepare another table similar to Table
2. rows also should contain the corresponding FISH results.Current Table 2 does not supply relevant information.Here discuss the reasons of discrepancy, as well as discuss the cases which are both negativeFISH in cytology and negative FISH in pathology.
Add 95%CI to sensitivity and specificity measures.
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
NoDoes the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
NoAre 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:
AcceptableDeclaration 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 thismanuscript, 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 hasagreed to publication of their comments online under a Creative Commons Attribution Licenseattributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within aspecified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewerrecommendation.
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 reportincluding 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 CommonsCC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any commentswhich I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential commentsto the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal