Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01775-9 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Subcapsular hepatic hematoma: A case of chronic expanding hematoma of
the liver
Version: 
0 
Date: 
16 Dec 2020
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript reveiw entitled "Subcapsular hepatic hematoma: A case of chronic
expanding hematoma of the liver"
This is a rare case report about interesting topic.
Problems with this paper:
1. P4L6: Please include a brief definition of the chronic expanding hemaoma in
abstract background.
2. P4L13: Please overwork the complete parahraph and focus the concise edited
text to the specifics of this case.
3. P4L57: "Surgical resection, rather than TAE, is required to treat CEH." should
be modified, because the authors only reported one successful treated case (e.g.
complete surgical resection --, including --, was effective treatment for CEH).
4. P5L20: Please include a precise definition of the chronic expanding hematoma
with proper citations.
5. P5L55: (Plain abdominal CT) What was the precise CT protocol: arterial or
delayed phase was also achieved?
If possible, providing scans from different phase together could help verifying
that there was no active extravasation.
Accurate depiction of bleeding often required dynamic phase and CT
angiography is generally more sensitive than fluorosopic angiography.
6. P6L2: How about clinical findings of this patient: pulse/RR, hemodynamic
instability?
7. P6L43: Please overwork the angiographical part. which sheath, catheter, how
was the amount, brand and size of gelfoam?
The selection of particle size is the most important issue in embolization through
capsular network.
Which vessel was embolized and how about embolization extent.
In this context, please add the post-embolization figures.
As described in discussion part, embolization of extrahepatic vessels including
internal thoracic, falciform, adrenal arteries may be required in some cases of
subcapsular hepatic hematoma. 
In this paper, single phase CT image and results of right hepatic, phrenic,
intercostal angio- have been provided.
Can the authors confirm that meticulous work-up for bleeding focus has been
carried out?
8. P7L26: Please check (Fig. c), (recurrence of hematoma._)
9. P9L3 Please omit "no case of curative TAE for a CEH has been reported" --
Authors never can be sure. 
10. P9L21: "and it therefore required treatmetn with surgical resection rather
than TAE." should be modified, because the authors only reported one successful
treated case (e.g. complete surgical resection --, including --, was effective
treatment for CEH).
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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.
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes