- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 3 on “A prospective cohort study to assess the role of FDG-PET in differentiating benign and malignant follicular neoplasms”
Annals of Medicine and Surgery 13 Supplement 1 (2017) S21
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 3 on “A prospective cohort study to assess the role of FDG-PET in differentiating benign and malignant follicular neoplasms” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor revision. 1.2. Comments to the author Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the article titled: A prospective cohort study to assess the role of FDG-PET in differentiating benign and malignant follicular neoplasms. AMS-D-1600141. This article prospectively considers fifty thyroid nodules showing FN/HCN on prior ultrasonography guided fine needle aspiration. A FDG-PET/CT was used in predicting the risk of malignancy. The researchers concluded that a FDG-PET/CT can help in differentiating benign and malignant non-HCN. The article is very similar to a recently published article by Pathak, K.A., Klonisch, T., Nason, R.W. et al. Ann Nucl [Med2016] 30: 506. I assume this was by the same authors as this current article. The current article builds on the findings of [Pathaketal.,2016], and should be published with minor amendments. I have the following general observations: - This article was described as a cohort study, although I believe it is most likely a case series analysis. This study does not appear to follow up two or more groups of patients to observe who
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.10.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.12.014 2049-0801
develop the outcome of interest. This study provides evidence about effectiveness, and should be redefined if appropriate to the journal. - The cases identified are a representative sample of only one hospital clinic; not a consecutive series of individuals recruited from multiple centres, although builds on other hospital results showing similar outcomes. This aspect is not sufficiently identified in the limitations. - Were all relevant exposures, potential confounding factors and outcomes measured accurately? Specific recommendations: - Introduction: Paragraph one: Please reference the claims made. - Material and methods Study cohort: Please include the research ethics number. Paragraph two: last sentence needs to be referenced. This article should be published with minor amendments. Fergus William Gardiner, BMS MBA Ph.D(c) Medical Research, Calvary Hospital Bruce, Medical Services, Cnr Belconnen Way & Haydon Drive Bruce, Canberra, 2617, Australia E-mail address: [email protected].
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 3 on “A prospective cohort study to assess the role of FDG-PET in differentiating benign and malignant follicular neoplasms” 1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor revision. 1.2. Comments to the author Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the article titled: A prospective cohort study to assess the role of FDG-PET in differentiating benign and malignant follicular neoplasms. AMS-D-1600141. This article prospectively considers fifty thyroid nodules showing FN/HCN on prior ultrasonography guided fine needle aspiration. A FDG-PET/CT was used in predicting the risk of malignancy. The researchers concluded that a FDG-PET/CT can help in differentiating benign and malignant non-HCN. The article is very similar to a recently published article by Pathak, K.A., Klonisch, T., Nason, R.W. et al. Ann Nucl [Med2016] 30: 506. I assume this was by the same authors as this current article. The current article builds on the findings of [Pathaketal.,2016], and should be published with minor amendments. I have the following general observations: - This article was described as a cohort study, although I believe it is most likely a case series analysis. This study does not appear to follow up two or more groups of patients to observe who
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.10.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.12.014 2049-0801
develop the outcome of interest. This study provides evidence about effectiveness, and should be redefined if appropriate to the journal. - The cases identified are a representative sample of only one hospital clinic; not a consecutive series of individuals recruited from multiple centres, although builds on other hospital results showing similar outcomes. This aspect is not sufficiently identified in the limitations. - Were all relevant exposures, potential confounding factors and outcomes measured accurately? Specific recommendations: - Introduction: Paragraph one: Please reference the claims made. - Material and methods Study cohort: Please include the research ethics number. Paragraph two: last sentence needs to be referenced. This article should be published with minor amendments. Fergus William Gardiner, BMS MBA Ph.D(c) Medical Research, Calvary Hospital Bruce, Medical Services, Cnr Belconnen Way & Haydon Drive Bruce, Canberra, 2617, Australia E-mail address: [email protected].