Title: Construction and Validation of a Predictive Model for the Return to Work of Patients
with Permanent Colorectal Stoma: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study, the authors are concerned about the difficulties in the process of
permanent colorectal stoma patients returning to work, and the research proposition has some
reference value for clinical practice, but I have some suggestions for this study.
Abstract
1.Object, Line 16-18: The abstract is not formatted correctly, and this section should be a
description of the background and purpose of the study.
Introduction
1.The background of the study is insufficient, and the current research status and blank parts of
the study are not sufficiently described.
2. Line 44-45: 'there will be up to 1.932 million new cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) worldwide
in 2020....', the epidemiological content of this section has been updated, it is recommended to
replace it with the latest data.
Material and methods
1. In this section, the content of the study design needs to be added, e.g. descriptive research
or other studies...
2. Line 73, participants: I don't see in the article what method the author uses to calculate the
sample size, so I would like to ask the author to add this section.
3.Line 77: ‘inclusion criteria (1) 18-58 years old’ The age limit here is 59 years, but in the
background section, the author suggests that there is a surge in incidence among young people
under 50 years of age, and the two ages are inconsistent, and ask the author to explain what is
the purpose of the age limit of 18-59?
4.Line 77: 'Inclusion criteria: (2) # 6 months after stoma operation' What is the basis for selecting
patients 6 months after ostomy surgery?
5.Line 99-102: ‘Stoma Acceptance: Because of the significant anatomical changes caused by
enterostomy surgery, patients us … acceptance as an important predictor variable.' The author
of this paragraph clearly explains why this scale was chosen for data collection, but I personally
do not think that this part of the content needs to be reflected there, and it is recommended to
delete it.
Result
1.Line 145-147: ‘the non-returned group included 206 patients (70.31%) aged 50.81±6.38 years
and the returned group included 87 patients (29.69%) aged 45.29±5.95 years.’ I don't know what
the author's grouping criteria for non-returned group and returned group are, and I didn't find
the corresponding content in the article
2.Line 165-166, Table 1: ‘Age’ and ‘Monthly household income’ both lack units, and the author
needs to indicate in the table which variables use the t-test and which variables use the chi-square
test, and need to indicate what the meaning of t and #2 represent at the bottom of the table.
3.Line 176-177, Table 2: ‘Age’ and ‘Monthly household income’ lack units, and ‘nature of
work’ and ‘Preoperative occupation’ need to be studied as dummy variables and then statistically
analyzed.
4.Line 176-177: Did the authors consider the role of covariates when performing multivariate
logistic analysis?
Discussion:
1.Line 214-306: In this section, the authors have given appropriate interventions, but in the light
of the interventions currently proposed, the interventions are single and similar, and the authors
are advised to add more nurses who can intervene and that the interventions given are feasible
in a clinical setting.
2.Line 299-306: I think this paragraph should be placed in the first paragraph of the discussion
section as an overview of the entire discussion section, and it is recommended that the author
make changes to this section and put it in the first paragraph of the discussion section.
Summary
1.Line 312-318: ‘There are some limitations in this study, due to the single study site and the
limited selection of relevant factors, the results of the study may differ when generalized to other
regions, future studies can include more factors and conduct multi-center investigations; due to
the limited sample size, this study was not proportionally divided into modeling and validation
groups, and only internal validation was conducted, the sample size can be enlarged in the future,
and the modeling and validation groups can be appropriately divided, and external validation
can be used to further evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the model.’ The author should
put the content of the section before the conclusion, forming a separate limitation section.
Title: Construction and Validation of a Predictive Model for the Return to Work of Patients
with Permanent Colorectal Stoma: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study, the authors are concerned about the difficulties in the process of
permanent colorectal stoma patients returning to work, and the research proposition has some
reference value for clinical practice, but I have some suggestions for this study.
Abstract
1.Object, Line 16-18: The abstract is not formatted correctly, and this section should be a
description of the background and purpose of the study.
Introduction
1.The background of the study is insufficient, and the current research status and blank parts of
the study are not sufficiently described.
2. Line 44-45: 'there will be up to 1.932 million new cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) worldwide
in 2020....', the epidemiological content of this section has been updated, it is recommended to
replace it with the latest data.
Material and methods
1. In this section, the content of the study design needs to be added, e.g. descriptive research
or other studies...
2. Line 73, participants: I don't see in the article what method the author uses to calculate the
sample size, so I would like to ask the author to add this section.
3.Line 77: ‘inclusion criteria (1) 18-58 years old’ The age limit here is 59 years, but in the
background section, the author suggests that there is a surge in incidence among young people
under 50 years of age, and the two ages are inconsistent, and ask the author to explain what is
the purpose of the age limit of 18-59?
4.Line 77: 'Inclusion criteria: (2) # 6 months after stoma operation' What is the basis for selecting
patients 6 months after ostomy surgery?
5.Line 99-102: ‘Stoma Acceptance: Because of the significant anatomical changes caused by
enterostomy surgery, patients us … acceptance as an important predictor variable.' The author
of this paragraph clearly explains why this scale was chosen for data collection, but I personally
do not think that this part of the content needs to be reflected there, and it is recommended to
delete it.
Result
1.Line 145-147: ‘the non-returned group included 206 patients (70.31%) aged 50.81±6.38 years
and the returned group included 87 patients (29.69%) aged 45.29±5.95 years.’ I don't know what
the author's grouping criteria for non-returned group and returned group are, and I didn't find
the corresponding content in the article
2.Line 165-166, Table 1: ‘Age’ and ‘Monthly household income’ both lack units, and the author
needs to indicate in the table which variables use the t-test and which variables use the chi-square
test, and need to indicate what the meaning of t and #2 represent at the bottom of the table.
3.Line 176-177, Table 2: ‘Age’ and ‘Monthly household income’ lack units, and ‘nature of
work’ and ‘Preoperative occupation’ need to be studied as dummy variables and then statistically
analyzed.
4.Line 176-177: Did the authors consider the role of covariates when performing multivariate
logistic analysis?
Discussion:
1.Line 214-306: In this section, the authors have given appropriate interventions, but in the light
of the interventions currently proposed, the interventions are single and similar, and the authors
are advised to add more nurses who can intervene and that the interventions given are feasible
in a clinical setting.
2.Line 299-306: I think this paragraph should be placed in the first paragraph of the discussion
section as an overview of the entire discussion section, and it is recommended that the author
make changes to this section and put it in the first paragraph of the discussion section.
Summary
1.Line 312-318: ‘There are some limitations in this study, due to the single study site and the
limited selection of relevant factors, the results of the study may differ when generalized to other
regions, future studies can include more factors and conduct multi-center investigations; due to
the limited sample size, this study was not proportionally divided into modeling and validation
groups, and only internal validation was conducted, the sample size can be enlarged in the future,
and the modeling and validation groups can be appropriately divided, and external validation
can be used to further evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the model.’ The author should
put the content of the section before the conclusion, forming a separate limitation section.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Construction and Validation of a Predictive Model for the Return to Work of Patients
with Permanent Colorectal Stoma: a cross-sectional study
Version: 1 Date: 08 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting study, the authors are concerned about the difficulties in the process of
permanent colorectal stoma patients returning to work, and the research proposition has some
reference value for clinical practice, but I have some suggestions for this study.
Abstract
1.Object, Line 16-18: The abstract is not formatted correctly, and this section should be a
description of the background and purpose of the study.
Introduction
1.The background of the study is insufficient, and the current research status and blank parts of
the study are not sufficiently described.
2. Line 44-45: 'there will be up to 1.932 million new cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) worldwide
in 2020....', the epidemiological content of this section has been updated, it is recommended to
replace it with the latest data.
Material and methods
1. In this section, the content of the study design needs to be added, e.g. descriptive research
or other studies...
2. Line 73, participants: I don't see in the article what method the author uses to calculate the
sample size, so I would like to ask the author to add this section.
3.Line 77: ‘inclusion criteria (1) 18-58 years old’ The age limit here is 59 years, but in the
background section, the author suggests that there is a surge in incidence among young people
under 50 years of age, and the two ages are inconsistent, and ask the author to explain what is
the purpose of the age limit of 18-59?
4.Line 77: 'Inclusion criteria: (2) # 6 months after stoma operation' What is the basis for selecting
patients 6 months after ostomy surgery?
5.Line 99-102: ‘Stoma Acceptance: Because of the significant anatomical changes caused by
enterostomy surgery, patients us … acceptance as an important predictor variable.' The author
of this paragraph clearly explains why this scale was chosen for data collection, but I personally
do not think that this part of the content needs to be reflected there, and it is recommended to
delete it.
Result
1.Line 145-147: ‘the non-returned group included 206 patients (70.31%) aged 50.81±6.38 years
and the returned group included 87 patients (29.69%) aged 45.29±5.95 years.’ I don't know what
the author's grouping criteria for non-returned group and returned group are, and I didn't find
the corresponding content in the article
2.Line 165-166, Table 1: ‘Age’ and ‘Monthly household income’ both lack units, and the author
needs to indicate in the table which variables use the t-test and which variables use the chi-square
test, and need to indicate what the meaning of t and #2 represent at the bottom of the table.
3.Line 176-177, Table 2: ‘Age’ and ‘Monthly household income’ lack units, and ‘nature of
work’ and ‘Preoperative occupation’ need to be studied as dummy variables and then statistically
analyzed.
4.Line 176-177: Did the authors consider the role of covariates when performing multivariate
logistic analysis?
Discussion:
1.Line 214-306: In this section, the authors have given appropriate interventions, but in the light
of the interventions currently proposed, the interventions are single and similar, and the authors
are advised to add more nurses who can intervene and that the interventions given are feasible
in a clinical setting.
2.Line 299-306: I think this paragraph should be placed in the first paragraph of the discussion
section as an overview of the entire discussion section, and it is recommended that the author
make changes to this section and put it in the first paragraph of the discussion section.
Summary
1.Line 312-318: ‘There are some limitations in this study, due to the single study site and the
limited selection of relevant factors, the results of the study may differ when generalized to other
regions, future studies can include more factors and conduct multi-center investigations; due to
the limited sample size, this study was not proportionally divided into modeling and validation
groups, and only internal validation was conducted, the sample size can be enlarged in the future,
and the modeling and validation groups can be appropriately divided, and external validation
can be used to further evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the model.’ The author should
put the content of the section before the conclusion, forming a separate limitation section.
assistant