Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study is noteworthy in that partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy was performed using the
author's unique method and the research results were derived through propensity score matching.
However, there are some questions about this study.
1. The authors must specify whether the study design is retrospective or prospective.
- If it is a prospective cohort study, the authors must mention the sample size calculation.
2. In order to be sure how many patients have not been followed up for more than 5 years, we
need the number at risk in fig 5. Also, since the investigation was conducted by phone, it seems
uncertain whether it recur or not.
1) Among the patients who experienced recurrence, it is necessary to check how many patients
were confirmed by phone and by examination.
2) I wonder how many patients each received conventional hemorrhoidectomy and rubber band
ligation during treatment for patients with recurrence.
3. In the flow chart of patient selection, the authors need to write down the numbers except
for the patients lost to follow-up in the last line. Also, since the analysis includes patients with
follow-up loss, it is better to exclude the “analysis” phrase.
Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study is noteworthy in that partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy was performed using the
author's unique method and the research results were derived through propensity score matching.
However, there are some questions about this study.
1. The authors must specify whether the study design is retrospective or prospective.
- If it is a prospective cohort study, the authors must mention the sample size calculation.
2. In order to be sure how many patients have not been followed up for more than 5 years, we
need the number at risk in fig 5. Also, since the investigation was conducted by phone, it seems
uncertain whether it recur or not.
1) Among the patients who experienced recurrence, it is necessary to check how many patients
were confirmed by phone and by examination.
2) I wonder how many patients each received conventional hemorrhoidectomy and rubber band
ligation during treatment for patients with recurrence.
3. In the flow chart of patient selection, the authors need to write down the numbers except
for the patients lost to follow-up in the last line. Also, since the analysis includes patients with
follow-up loss, it is better to exclude the “analysis” phrase.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 13 Feb 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study is noteworthy in that partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy was performed using the
author's unique method and the research results were derived through propensity score matching.
However, there are some questions about this study.
1. The authors must specify whether the study design is retrospective or prospective.
- If it is a prospective cohort study, the authors must mention the sample size calculation.
2. In order to be sure how many patients have not been followed up for more than 5 years, we
need the number at risk in fig 5. Also, since the investigation was conducted by phone, it seems
uncertain whether it recur or not.
1) Among the patients who experienced recurrence, it is necessary to check how many patients
were confirmed by phone and by examination.
2) I wonder how many patients each received conventional hemorrhoidectomy and rubber band
ligation during treatment for patients with recurrence.
3. In the flow chart of patient selection, the authors need to write down the numbers except
for the patients lost to follow-up in the last line. Also, since the analysis includes patients with
follow-up loss, it is better to exclude the “analysis” phrase.
assistant