All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The revised manuscript has addressed all of the previous concerns. The authors have done a commendable job in addressing the issues raised and improving the overall quality of the manuscript. I strongly recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication.
Please revise the manuscript as suggested.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
I have read and reviewed the manuscript “Development and validation of web-based dynamic nomograms predictive of disease-free and overall survival in patients who underwent pneumonectomy for primary lung cancer”. The general idea of a nomogram that takes into account the T and N elements along with some of the details about why pneumonectomies are performed to help predict both OS and DFS has interest. However, much work should be done to improve this manuscript before publication. I have the following comments:
1. In the "Methods" section, please clarify the definition of a positive margin.
2. In the "Methods" section, please specify how many patients adhered to the follow-up strategy and if there were routine procedures for detecting brain or bone metastasis.
5. In the "Results" section, adjuvant therapy is employed as a survival predictor. Please provide the indications for adjuvant therapy and address the concern that patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy may have had worse conditions, such as increased comorbidity, leading to poorer survival outcomes.
7. In the "Results" section, the AUCs of the nomograms mostly range from 0.6 to 0.7, which are unsatisfactory.
8. In the "Results" section, it would be interesting to know if there are outcome differences between right and left pneumonectomy.
Clear and logical. Appropriate presentation.
Well designed.
The finding is validated properly.
no comment
no comment
no comment
In this study, Yu and colleagues identified the independent clinicopathological variables that predict disease-free and overall survival in patients who underwent pneumonectomy for primary pulmonary malignancy based on a real-world cohort analysis. Moreover, web-based servers according to the integrated nomogram models have been developed and are freely available for thoracic surgeons to input the predictive variables required for the individualized DFS and OS probability. I only have some minore comments: a) The English and grammar should be checked throughout the whole paper. b) How many patients were excluded according to the exclusion criteria? I recommend the authors take a figure to show the screening process. c) The clinical implications of the two nomograms remain unclear and require further clarification.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.