Review for 10.1186/s12876-023-02931-z (2023)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
INTERNATIONAL SURVEY AMONG HEPATOLOGISTS AND
PULMONOLOGISTS ON THE HEPATIC HYDROTHORAX : PLEA FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS
Version: 
4 
Date: 
30 Apr 2023
Reviewer's report:
Unfortunately, the authors did not follow my comments, so I send again the same
instructions. 
The paper "International survey among hepatologists and pneumologists on
hepatic hydrothorax : plea for recommendations" is a very interesting paper.
However, it is not well written, the terminology is not correct and needs fully
editing for mistakes in grammar, syntax and medical terminology in English. I
quote below some of my comments.
Some comments
Abstract
-Questionnaire not questionnary
-"79% hepatogastroenterologists vs 54% hepatogastroenterologists ; p<0.001)".
It is a mistake
-The terminology for the infection of hepatic hydrothorax is "spontaneous
bacterial empyema" proportional to "spontaneous bacterial peritonitis" and not -
"empyema" alone
-"Responders" not "respondeurs"
Introduction
-"Practionners responding to the study were asked to concerning diagnosis and
"tre"?? email the primary coordinator" What does it mean?
-"anonymous" not "anonymized"
-were "from" France not were "for" France
-Page 6 "the 77% of practitioners were senior" not "practitionners 77% were
senior".
B3
-"66% for HG / 57% for practitionners, p = 0.25. (Figure 2). 91% of responders
agreed". The authors compare the hepatogastroenterologists vs pulmonologists
opinion. Here it is not clear what they compare.
-again "hepatic hydrothorax may exist in the absence of clinical ascites 93% for
HG / 80% for practitionners, p = 0.25". 
-It is not clear if with the word "practitioners" the authors mean the responders
overall or the pulmonologists. 
-practitioners with one "n"
B5
-What does it mean "protide dosage"
-"tomodensitometry" means "computed tomography"
-"the possibility of tamponnade" tamponade here means "cardiac tamponade"
What kind of tamponade? If cardiac tamponade is concerning, what is the
mechanism in this situation?
D5
Instead to "Cytobacteriological and chemical examination of pleural fluid" is
better to write "the pleural fluid was examined for total protein, albumin and
lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, cell count, Gram stain and culture in blood
culture bottles"
D6
Neither "in fusion" nor "perfusion of albumin" but "human albumin infusion"
"one vial of albumin / 3 liters of pleural effusion" How many grams is one vial?
It is different from country to country and from pharmaceutical company to
another.
D9
"vacuo edema" means "re-expansion pulmonary edema"?
"pleural puncture" or "thoracentesis"?
E1 
"HG" instead of "HGE" for "hepatogastroenterologists" like throughout the
paper
E3
polymorphonuclear count instead of polynuclear count
etc
The paper "International survey among hepatologists and pneumologists on
hepatic hydrothorax : plea for recommendations" is a very interesting paper.
However, 
it needs fully editing for mistakes in grammar, syntax and medical
terminology in English. In particular, the paper needs much improvement in the
use of English medical terminology in order to be comprehensible by the
readers. I quote below some of my comments.
Some comments
Abstract
-Questionnaire not questionnary
-"79% hepatogastroenterologists vs 54% hepatogastroenterologists ; p<0.001)".
It is a mistake
-The terminology for the infection of hepatic hydrothorax is "spontaneous
bacterial empyema" proportional to "spontaneous bacterial peritonitis" and not -
"empyema" alone
-"Responders" not "respondeurs"
Introduction
-"Practionners responding to the study were asked to concerning diagnosis and
"tre"?? email the primary coordinator" What does it mean?
-"anonymous" not "anonymized"
-were "from" France not were "for" France
-Page 6 "the 77% of practitioners were senior" not "practitionners 77% were
senior".
B3
-"66% for HG / 57% for practitionners, p = 0.25. (Figure 2). 91% of responders
agreed". The authors compare the hepatogastroenterologists vs pulmonologists
opinion. Here it is not clear what they compare.
-again "hepatic hydrothorax may exist in the absence of clinical ascites 93% for
HG / 80% for practitionners, p = 0.25". 
-It is not clear if with the word "practitioners" the authors mean the responders
overall or the pulmonologists. 
-practitioners with one "n"
B5
-What does it mean "protide dosage"
-"tomodensitometry" means "computed tomography"
-"the possibility of tamponnade" tamponade here means "cardiac tamponade"
What kind of tamponade? If cardiac tamponade is concerning, what is the
mechanism in this situation?
D5
Instead to "Cytobacteriological and chemical examination of pleural fluid" is
better to write "the pleural fluid was examined for total protein, albumin and
lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, cell count, Gram stain and culture in blood
culture bottles"
D6
Neither "in fusion" nor "perfusion of albumin" but "human albumin infusion"
"one vial of albumin / 3 liters of pleural effusion" How many grams is one vial?
It is different from country to country and from pharmaceutical company to
another.
D9
"vacuo edema" means "re-expansion pulmonary edema"?
"pleural puncture" or "thoracentesis"?
E1 
"HG" instead of "HGE" for "hepatogastroenterologists" like throughout the
paper
E3
polymorphonuclear count instead of polynuclear count
etc
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?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (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 Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “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 Web of Science, 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. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
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 Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
Yes