应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » 大家帮忙看看这篇文章还有改得必要吗？
51/1返回列表
查看: 856  |  回复: 6
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

islestar

银虫 (小有名气)

[求助] 大家帮忙看看这篇文章还有改得必要吗？

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The authors performed meta-analyses of the survivals after radio-frequent ablation and surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinomas within Milan criteria. The main finding of their review was increased local control rate by hepatic resection with improved disease-free survivals. Unfortunately, similar reviews or meta-analysis were already published in the literatures as the followings. Moreover, the discussion of this article is very poor with only 3 references.
#1. Please make the discussion more concise with referring previous reviews and show how this analysis is different from the previous ones.
#2. The backgrounds of the patients need to be compared between the RFA and surgery.
1. Tiong L, Maddern GJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and disease recurrence after radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma.Br J Surg. 2011 Sep;98(9):1210-24.
2. Liu JG, Wang YJ, Du Z.Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jul 21;16(27):3450-6.
3. Zhou Y, Zhao Y, Li B, Xu D, Yin Z, Xie F, Yang J. Meta-analysis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010 Jul 9;10:78.
4. Xu G, Qi FZ, Zhang JH, Cheng GF, Cai Y, Miao Y. Meta-analysis of surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation for early hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug 16;10:163.


Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
This is a systematic review of RCTs and non-RCTs comparing survival and disease recurrence rates after surgical resection or radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria.
This study has a few drawbacks.
1) As the authors stated in the Results section, the 4 RCTs had moderate methodological quality, with a mean Jadad score of 2.75. The quality of reporting with a Jadad score below 3 is categorized as poor. Therefore, the systematic review analyzing such RCTs as well as non-RCTs lacks quality.
回复此楼

» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐

Cover_Letter

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼 2013-05-11 08:22:56
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhoupeng87

版主 (文学泰斗)

优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
还是改一改吧，好歹付出了
赞一下 回复此楼
6楼2013-05-11 11:34:22
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 7 个回答

wellyy2005

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

s

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
别人已经发表过类似文献；所以你要大改才有可能获得认可的。
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
2楼2013-05-11 08:48:30
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

islestar

银虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by wellyy2005 at 2013-05-11 08:48:30
别人已经发表过类似文献；所以你要大改才有可能获得认可的。

如何大改呢？对文章的内容吗
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2013-05-11 09:43:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

islestar

银虫 (小有名气)
能给我提点建议吗？这篇文章纳入文献比之前的多一些，分析的内容差不多，如何才能与之前的文章不同呢？
赞一下 回复此楼
4楼2013-05-11 09:51:04
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 7 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭