Post Procedural Pain Following Percutaneous Thermal Liver Tumor Ablation under Procedural Sedation and Analgesia: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract includes all required components such as background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The chosen keywords like "procedural sedation and analgesia", "thermal liver ablation", and "post procedural pain" are appropriate as they accurately reflect the main topics and scope of the study.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

Comments: The goal is explicitly stated in the Introduction and is formulated clearly. It presents the aim to measure the prevalence and severity of post-procedural pain following percutaneous thermal liver tumor ablation and to identify predictors for this pain. The formulation is precise and sets a clear direction for the study.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: The structure of the paper is coherent and well-aligned with the goals. It systematically progresses from introduction to methods, results, and then discussion and conclusion, which supports the flow and comprehension of the research findings relative to the set goals.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The discussion and conclusions are directly related to the results presented. The paper effectively ties the findings back to the objectives, discussing the implications of the predictive factors for post-procedural pain and comparing these with existing literature, thus providing a coherent narrative.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author extensively utilizes relevant literature to frame the research questions, justify the methodology, and discuss the findings. References are contemporary and pertinent to the topic, indicating thorough research and understanding.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper appears adequate for the significance of the topic. It provides sufficient detail to understand the study's context, methodology, results, and implications without unnecessary elaboration.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: The paper uses legends for tables effectively, and notations are clear. Each table and figure is well-explained in the text, contributing to the reader’s understanding of the data presented.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear, professional, and understandable, with technical terms appropriately explained. The text is structured in a way that is accessible to readers with a background in the subject area.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Overall, the paper is well-crafted with a clear focus and robust methodology. It could benefit from a discussion on potential biases or limitations of the study due to its retrospective nature, which might influence the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, future studies could explore more diverse populations or settings to enhance the applicability of the results across different clinical contexts.

Reviewer 1: This study robustly explores post-procedural pain following percutaneous thermal liver tumor ablation, with a clear goal and structured approach. The comprehensive use of relevant literature and coherent discussion strengthens the paper. However, the retrospective design might introduce biases not fully discussed, potentially limiting generalizability. Future work should consider a prospective design to confirm these findings across diverse settings.

Reviewer 2: The paper effectively identifies predictors of post-procedural pain, utilizing an appropriate methodology and coherent structure. The keywords and abstract are well-crafted. Enhancements in discussing limitations and broader applicability would provide a stronger foundation for the study's conclusions.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team