Title: Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in endometrial lesions
Version: 0 Date: 06 Nov 2024
Reviewer:  Xu Zhang
Reviewer's report:
This article provides a comprehensive design for the application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound
(CEUS) in the diagnosis of endometrial lesions. Through a multi-parameter analysis and
standardized image processing, the study demonstrates the high efficiency and practicality
of CEUS in differentiating benign and malignant lesions. The research utilized 15 imaging
parameters in combination with logistic regression models to develop a diagnostic model with
high sensitivity and specificity. The results section, using rich data and a ROC curve analysis,
proves the effectiveness of the model.
1.Research Objectives and Background
Insufficient Literature Review: While the paper mentions some related studies, the literature
review can be further expanded, especially regarding the applications and limitations of CEUS
in other gynecological diseases. This would help readers better understand the background and
significance of the study.
Unclear Research Objectives: Although the research objectives are mentioned in the abstract,
they should be more explicitly stated in the introduction, detailing the specific goals and expected
contributions of the study.
2.Methodology
Small Sample Size: The study included 236 patients, with only 32 having malignant lesions. The
small sample size may limit the statistical power of the results. It is recommended to address this
limitation in the discussion and consider increasing the sample size in future multicenter studies.
Selection of Imaging Parameters: While the paper lists 15 imaging parameters, it does
not provide detailed explanations of the clinical significance and selection criteria for each
parameter. More detailed descriptions of these parameters should be included in the methods
section.
Selection of Control Group: The study does not clearly specify the selection criteria and
exclusion criteria for the control group, which may affect the credibility of the results. The
screening process for the control group should be detailed in the methods section.
3.Results
Statistical Analysis Methods: The paper uses logistic regression models but does not provide
detailed explanations of the specific statistical methods and hypothesis testing processes. The
results section should include a more detailed description of the statistical methods, including
how missing data and multicollinearity issues were handled.
4.Discussion
Overly Brief Result Interpretation: While the discussion mentions some important findings, the
clinical significance and potential mechanisms of these findings are not thoroughly explored.
Further discussion of the biological basis and clinical application prospects of these parameter
changes is recommended.
Insufficient Discussion of Limitations: The paper mentions some limitations of the study but
could provide a more detailed discussion, such as the impact of the small sample size and the
limitations of a single-center study. Future research directions, such as combining 3D imaging
techniques for comprehensive assessment, should also be proposed.
5.Writing Quality
Language Needs Improvement: Some sentences in the paper are not fluent and contain
grammatical errors and typos. Careful proofreading and editing are recommended to ensure clear
and accurate language expression.
Inconsistent Reference Formatting: The formatting of the references is inconsistent. It is
recommended to unify the format according to the journal's requirements.