Review for 10.1186/s12876-017-0719-1 (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Efficacy comparison of multi -phase CT and hepatotropic contrast -enhanced MRI in the 
differential diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia: a prospective cohort study.  
 
Version: 0 Date: 18 Jun 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Daniel R.  Ganger  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
1- Central scar presence was seen more often  in larger lesions on both CT and MR. You 
state that there were 21 patients with histopathological examination. How many did not 
have central scar?  
 
2- Although this paper is on FNH, the number of additional lesions discovered by MR vs 
CT was significant ( 45 more). Can you comment whether the radiologist could find in 
retrospect the lesions missed on CT?  
 
3- In page 7, line 22, you use the wording radi ological symptoms, which is not 
appropriate. I  recommend using different wording (signs).  
 
4- Enhancement in HBP  was an important criterion when cirrhotics were excluded ) page 
7, line 24). How many FNH were seen in cirrhotics?  
 
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 aut hors.  
 
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 stat istics  
 
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 o r 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.  
 
I agree to the open pee r 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 autho rs' 
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