BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Articles Published Processes Featured Articles Journals Submit a Manuscript
Article Quality Tracking
Tie J, Yuan XL, Niu J, Xu J, Shi YQ. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt combined with viral suppression reverses decompensated cirrhosis: Two case reports. World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(37): 120860 [DOI: 10.3748/wjg.120860]
(9) (9) (0) (0) (2) (155)
Reviewer's ID:
00182114
Submitted on:
September 02, 2026, 08:19
Peer-Review:
Anonymous
Reviewer's Country:
Japan
Conflicts-of-interest statement

Reviewers should recognize, acknowledge and disclose any potential conflict of interest that may include (but not be limited) to the following, and inform the editorial office immediately upon discovery of any conflict of interest, stopping if the article review process is underway.

Close personal and/or professional relationship with the author(s); submitted similar or competing manuscripts to BPG or other journals; studied together with the author(s) and/or has former student, resident, fellow, mentor or family relative relationship; and have had in last 5 years collaboration or common grants and/or publications or financial interest with the authors?
Criteria for Article Quality Tracking-Peer-Review

The mission of BPG is to comply with publishing ethics/standards established by the industry and to publish high quality articles. In addition, we strive to make a strict peer-review of each article submitted, and tracking the scientific quality of each is the mission of the editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers.

The following evaluation points are for editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers’ reference only in evaluating an article:

1 Ethics: Does the ethical approval form provided by the author meet the requirements?

2 Methods: Is the experimental method effective? Can it be repeated by fellow researchers (according to adequate textual/citation content presented)?

3 Results: Are the results true and authentic? Is the theory or hypothesis of universal significance validated or partially validated?

4 Figures and tables: Does the author provide perfect tables, line charts and/or graphs? Or, does the author provide figures and tables that are confusing, poorly constructed and/or not well-annotated?

5 Biostatistics: Does the author provide perfect biostatistics data? Or, does the author provide tables and line charts that have mistakes in the data?

6 References: Does the author scientifically and reasonably cite the latest references which are important in this field and related to the scientific problems and research hypotheses addressed in the study? Or, does the author self-cite, omit, mis-cite and/or over-cite references?

7 Language: Does the language in article correctly, clearly and concisely express the information? Or, does the article have multiple grammatical and spelling mistakes?

8 Caveats or drawbacks: What are the caveats or drawbacks for the results?

Comments to Authors
Please make a specific and meaningful evaluation on the objectivity, credibility and scientific quality of the article according to above listed criteria. Please identify which issues have been resolved by the author and which not, what problems still exist, and which method the author intends to adopt to solve the problem in the next step, etc. Your high quality conclusion will also be advantageous for the author’s efforts in conducting future research, will contribute to raising the reader’s interest, and will promote discipline development. Please fill in your detailed comments to authors at below:
This is very interesting paper. While TIPS (Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt) is dramatically effective in treating refractory ascites and esophageal varices caused by portal hypertension, a post-procedural decline in liver function—either temporary or long-term—is the more common outcome. However, under specific conditions or when complications are successfully managed, there are cases where the patient's overall condition and certain indicators of hepatic reserve appear to "improve." It is important to note that since the fundamental nature of TIPS is to bypass the liver, the procedure does not actually rejuvenate the hepatocytes themselves; rather, improvements in liver function markers and overall condition occur through the following mechanisms: Improvement in renal function and metabolism through the reduction or discontinuation of diuretics—Background: Cases involving the use of high-dose diuretics to control refractory ascites prior to the procedure, leading to dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and impaired renal function (hepatorenal syndrome). Improvement: Once TIPS resolves the ascites, diuretic dosages can be significantly reduced or discontinued. This allows renal function to recover and improves systemic metabolic status, thereby indirectly reducing the burden on the liver and leading to improvements in blood test results (such as albumin levels). Recovery from liver failure by preventing gastrointestinal bleeding—Background: Cases where recurrent bleeding from esophageal or gastric varices causes chronic anemia and hypotension, resulting in insufficient oxygen supply to the liver and a marked decline in liver function. TIPS lowers portal pressure and completely controls bleeding, stabilizing oxygen supply to the liver. As anemia resolves, impaired hepatic reserve may recover to its baseline level. Dramatic improvement in nutritional status (amelioration of sarcopenia)—Background: Cases where abdominal distension due to massive ascites prevents adequate food intake, leading to severe malnutrition and loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia). Improvement: In such cases, the resolution of ascites enables increased food intake. Although the efficiency of amino acid metabolism decreases because a portion of portal blood flow bypasses the liver, there are cases where serum albumin levels rise and liver function (synthetic capacity) tends to improve over the long term due to increased total caloric and protein intake. I ask question for author. For which types of cases does TIPS yield favorable results?
Author Awards
1 Award aims: To praise the authors who have made outstanding contributions by publishing original and innovative Basic study, Clinical study, Case report and/or Review in any of the 43 open-access publications of BPG. Their publications represent meaningful contributions towards promoting the ability of readers to get the latest research results and towards the development of medical science. To thank such authors for their contributions, we have set up the ‘Baishideng Distinguished Award’ to track the quality of articles and award the corresponding authors.

2 Selection methods: Editorial board members will track the quality of the published articles in each issue, so that they can recognize excellent articles and categorize them for recommendation. Then, the annual Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be selected according to the recommendation categories and the academic influence of the articles. The indexes for academic influence of the articles involves the number of citations, clicks and downloads the paper received.

3 Number of awards: Among articles published in the 43 journals of BPG, 12 total articles (3 Reviews, 3 Basic studies, 3 Clinical studies and 3 Case reports) will be recognized and their authors awarded.

4 Award amounts: The first prize will be 5000 USD. The second prize will be 3000 USD. The third prize will be 2000 USD. In addition, each winner will be presented an official certificate for their Baishideng Distinguished Award.

5 List of winners: The list of Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be announced on the official BPG website.
Editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers should categorize articles according to the following recommendation categories, with consideration to results of the Track Article Quality assessment to identify excellent articles:
Reviewer's ID:
00159305
Submitted on:
September 05, 2026, 16:20
Peer-Review:
Anonymous
Reviewer's Country:
Romania
Conflicts-of-interest statement

Reviewers should recognize, acknowledge and disclose any potential conflict of interest that may include (but not be limited) to the following, and inform the editorial office immediately upon discovery of any conflict of interest, stopping if the article review process is underway.

Close personal and/or professional relationship with the author(s); submitted similar or competing manuscripts to BPG or other journals; studied together with the author(s) and/or has former student, resident, fellow, mentor or family relative relationship; and have had in last 5 years collaboration or common grants and/or publications or financial interest with the authors?
Criteria for Article Quality Tracking-Peer-Review

The mission of BPG is to comply with publishing ethics/standards established by the industry and to publish high quality articles. In addition, we strive to make a strict peer-review of each article submitted, and tracking the scientific quality of each is the mission of the editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers.

The following evaluation points are for editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers’ reference only in evaluating an article:

1 Ethics: Does the ethical approval form provided by the author meet the requirements?

2 Methods: Is the experimental method effective? Can it be repeated by fellow researchers (according to adequate textual/citation content presented)?

3 Results: Are the results true and authentic? Is the theory or hypothesis of universal significance validated or partially validated?

4 Figures and tables: Does the author provide perfect tables, line charts and/or graphs? Or, does the author provide figures and tables that are confusing, poorly constructed and/or not well-annotated?

5 Biostatistics: Does the author provide perfect biostatistics data? Or, does the author provide tables and line charts that have mistakes in the data?

6 References: Does the author scientifically and reasonably cite the latest references which are important in this field and related to the scientific problems and research hypotheses addressed in the study? Or, does the author self-cite, omit, mis-cite and/or over-cite references?

7 Language: Does the language in article correctly, clearly and concisely express the information? Or, does the article have multiple grammatical and spelling mistakes?

8 Caveats or drawbacks: What are the caveats or drawbacks for the results?

Comments to Authors
Please make a specific and meaningful evaluation on the objectivity, credibility and scientific quality of the article according to above listed criteria. Please identify which issues have been resolved by the author and which not, what problems still exist, and which method the author intends to adopt to solve the problem in the next step, etc. Your high quality conclusion will also be advantageous for the author’s efforts in conducting future research, will contribute to raising the reader’s interest, and will promote discipline development. Please fill in your detailed comments to authors at below:
The article presents two interesting cases of patients with virus-related decompensated cirrhosis who were treated with TIPS and antiviral therapy and subsequently had favorable long-term outcomes. A major strength of the article is the more than 10-year follow-up period and the use of multiple assessment methods, including clinical, laboratory, hemodynamic, imaging, and histological parameters. The findings are particularly interesting, especially the normalization of portal pressure and the significant regression of liver fibrosis. From a writing perspective, the article is well written, clear, and coherent, with a logical structure and appropriate medical terminology. The grammar and terminology are accurate, and the information is presented in a professional and easy-to-follow manner. Overall, I consider the article to be of good quality, addressing a relevant topic and presenting findings that deserve further investigation in larger studies.
Author Awards
1 Award aims: To praise the authors who have made outstanding contributions by publishing original and innovative Basic study, Clinical study, Case report and/or Review in any of the 43 open-access publications of BPG. Their publications represent meaningful contributions towards promoting the ability of readers to get the latest research results and towards the development of medical science. To thank such authors for their contributions, we have set up the ‘Baishideng Distinguished Award’ to track the quality of articles and award the corresponding authors.

2 Selection methods: Editorial board members will track the quality of the published articles in each issue, so that they can recognize excellent articles and categorize them for recommendation. Then, the annual Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be selected according to the recommendation categories and the academic influence of the articles. The indexes for academic influence of the articles involves the number of citations, clicks and downloads the paper received.

3 Number of awards: Among articles published in the 43 journals of BPG, 12 total articles (3 Reviews, 3 Basic studies, 3 Clinical studies and 3 Case reports) will be recognized and their authors awarded.

4 Award amounts: The first prize will be 5000 USD. The second prize will be 3000 USD. The third prize will be 2000 USD. In addition, each winner will be presented an official certificate for their Baishideng Distinguished Award.

5 List of winners: The list of Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be announced on the official BPG website.
Editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers should categorize articles according to the following recommendation categories, with consideration to results of the Track Article Quality assessment to identify excellent articles:
Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA. All rights reserved, including rights relating to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For open-access content, the applicable copyright and licensing terms govern.