Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01815-4 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Effect of timing of surgical resection of primary hepatocellular
carcinoma on survival outcomes in elderly patients and prediction of clinical
models
Version: 
0 
Date: 
08 Feb 2021
Reviewer: 
Wafaa El-Akel
Reviewer's report:
BMGE-D-20-01559
Generally, very interesting article with good design and statistical analysis that
support its hypothesis. However, there are some comments that do not alter the
good quality of the paper 
Title: I d rather prefer to replace "delayed surgical resection" by "timing of
surgical resection"
Abstract: well structures and clear
Introduction: well described the rationale and objectives 
* In page 3,line 58, and Page 4, line 45; delete (add citation) and put reference
Methodology: in statistical analysis 
* In page 6, In line 50; "results showed that TTS was not significant". This is
supposed to be in results section. It is early to mention this piece of results in
statistical analysis part.
* In page 6, In line 51: "TTS were grouped according to time points 18, 30, 60
days". What is the rationale of this classification; specifically 18, 30, 60 ?
Results:
* In page 8, line 26; "Previous studies have shown that Liver cirrhosis …..".
These studies were not mentioned. A following reference is needed at the end of
this paragraph
* In page 8, Line 33, The source or the reference of The risk score formula is not
mentioned 
Discussion
* Page 10, Line 37, 38, end of the sentence by period is not appropriate "will
receive surgery later. And receive a more comprehensive preoperative
evaluation." Please, rephrase
* Page 11, Line from 6-27; the authors have not included nutritional assessment
of the patients in their study. Other previous studied did. The substitution of the
nutritional assessment with liver biochemical profile is inappropriate. I suggest
excluding the first paragraph, start this part of discussion with the sentence "it is
important to correctly evaluate the liver function when performing hepatocellular
carcinoma resection….."
Reference
* 1st references lack page number
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
Yes
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 publish my name with my
report.
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