Reviewer's report 
 Botulinum Toxin Injection versus Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy in the treatment of Chronic Title: 
Anal Fissure: a non-randomized controlled trial. 
 1  11 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Wolfgang Jost Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper presented is an interesting one and a worthy contribution to the numerous publications on 
botulinum toxin the treatment of anal fissure. 
It makes a lot of sense to compare the effect of botulinum toxin with a postoperative effect, moreso 
since lateral sphincterectomy is still being considered the treatment of choice, and since botulinum toxin has not yet been approved by the authorities for that kind of indication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The discussion part should be more condensed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
One would wish for larger collectives of course, but this shouldn't lead to refusal of the paper. 
It is quite astonishing that there is only one paper to be cited from the last three years. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Reviewer's report 
 Botulinum Toxin Injection versus Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy in the treatment of Chronic Title: 
Anal Fissure: a non-randomized controlled trial. 
 1  11 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Wolfgang Jost Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper presented is an interesting one and a worthy contribution to the numerous publications on 
botulinum toxin the treatment of anal fissure. 
It makes a lot of sense to compare the effect of botulinum toxin with a postoperative effect, moreso 
since lateral sphincterectomy is still being considered the treatment of choice, and since botulinum toxin has not yet been approved by the authorities for that kind of indication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The discussion part should be more condensed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
One would wish for larger collectives of course, but this shouldn't lead to refusal of the paper. 
It is quite astonishing that there is only one paper to be cited from the last three years. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Botulinum Toxin Injection versus Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy in the treatment of Chronic Title: 
Anal Fissure: a non-randomized controlled trial. 
 1  11 February 2004 Version: Date: 
 Wolfgang Jost Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper presented is an interesting one and a worthy contribution to the numerous publications on 
botulinum toxin the treatment of anal fissure. 
It makes a lot of sense to compare the effect of botulinum toxin with a postoperative effect, moreso 
since lateral sphincterectomy is still being considered the treatment of choice, and since botulinum toxin has not yet been approved by the authorities for that kind of indication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) 
The discussion part should be more condensed. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
One would wish for larger collectives of course, but this shouldn't lead to refusal of the paper. 
It is quite astonishing that there is only one paper to be cited from the last three years. 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article of importance in its field Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
assistant