Changes in Inflammatory Markers Predict the Prognosis of Resected Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Child–Pugh A

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your findings are consistent with several other studies that have looked at similar prognostic values of PLR. Your discussion section of the paper should go into details of the scientific rationale of the findings of the study.  Even if you are unable to fully explain  your findings, a hypothesis should be described.   This is the minimal requirement of a  retrospective study.   You also need to described the limitations of a small retrospective study in the discussion section.

Author Response

Point 1: Your discussion section of the paper should go into details of the scientific rationale of the findings of the study. Even if you are unable to fully explain  your findings, a hypothesis should be described.  

Response 1: In the discussion section of the paper, the possible theoretical basis to support the research results has been added.

Point 2: You also need to described the limitations of a small retrospective study in the discussion section.

Response 2:  the limitations of this study have been described in the discussion section.

Point 3: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response 3: We have checked and extensively revised the English language and style.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the authors

The article with the title “The Changes of Inflammatory Markers Predict the Prognosis of Resected Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Child-Pugh A” is in generally well done, but I would offer these comments to the investigators: 

1)      Some minor grammatical errors occur. The manuscript contains significant language-related issues. Please correct these types of grammatical errors throughout the paper.

2)      The discussion must be expanse.

3)      Please provide some more recent references of the last 2-3 years.

Author Response

Point 1: Some minor grammatical errors occur. The manuscript contains significant language-related issues. Please correct these types of grammatical errors throughout the paper.

Response 1: We have checked and extensively revised the English language.

Point 2: The discussion must be expanse.

Response 2: In the discussion part of the artical, we have added the possible theoretical support of the research results. We also discussed the limitations of the research. We compared the similarities and differences with other studies and analyzed the possibility of differences.

Point 3: Please provide some more recent references of the last 2-3 years.

Respose 3: We have made some modifications to the references, and the proportion of references in recent 3 years is 90%.