Title: Development and evaluation of a Japanese prediction model for low anterior resection
syndrome after rectal cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 30 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
This is a standard nomogram analysis that uses logistic regression along with area under the
curve (AUC) statistics to predict low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery.
Splitting the learning and validation set based on time period is a nice approach. The paper
is missing some calibration details which are commonly presented in nomogram papers.
Otherwise, the comments are relatively minor overall.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 1) The authors could present a calibration plot or other justification that their
nomogram is well calibrated.
Comment 2) The authors could describe how quickly LARS develops. If there are significant
lag times to the development of LARS, the authors could better account for the time to event
aspect by using a Cox proportional hazards or similar regression to create the nomogram. A Fine
& Gray model would be appropriate if death is a significant competing risk.
Comment 3) There are some typos in the document (e.g. “patinets” and “propotion” in Results).
Using Word spell check would be useful.
Comment 4) The regression coefficients or related odds ratios that were used to create the
nomogram could be included in the paper if not already there. Table 4 presents a model with
intersphincteric resection, which was omitted from the final nomogram model due to lack of
statistical significance.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No further comments."
Title: Development and evaluation of a Japanese prediction model for low anterior resection
syndrome after rectal cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 30 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
This is a standard nomogram analysis that uses logistic regression along with area under the
curve (AUC) statistics to predict low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery.
Splitting the learning and validation set based on time period is a nice approach. The paper
is missing some calibration details which are commonly presented in nomogram papers.
Otherwise, the comments are relatively minor overall.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 1) The authors could present a calibration plot or other justification that their
nomogram is well calibrated.
Comment 2) The authors could describe how quickly LARS develops. If there are significant
lag times to the development of LARS, the authors could better account for the time to event
aspect by using a Cox proportional hazards or similar regression to create the nomogram. A Fine
& Gray model would be appropriate if death is a significant competing risk.
Comment 3) There are some typos in the document (e.g. “patinets” and “propotion” in Results).
Using Word spell check would be useful.
Comment 4) The regression coefficients or related odds ratios that were used to create the
nomogram could be included in the paper if not already there. Table 4 presents a model with
intersphincteric resection, which was omitted from the final nomogram model due to lack of
statistical significance.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No further comments."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Development and evaluation of a Japanese prediction model for low anterior resection
syndrome after rectal cancer surgery
Version: 1 Date: 30 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
This is a standard nomogram analysis that uses logistic regression along with area under the
curve (AUC) statistics to predict low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery.
Splitting the learning and validation set based on time period is a nice approach. The paper
is missing some calibration details which are commonly presented in nomogram papers.
Otherwise, the comments are relatively minor overall.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Comment 1) The authors could present a calibration plot or other justification that their
nomogram is well calibrated.
Comment 2) The authors could describe how quickly LARS develops. If there are significant
lag times to the development of LARS, the authors could better account for the time to event
aspect by using a Cox proportional hazards or similar regression to create the nomogram. A Fine
& Gray model would be appropriate if death is a significant competing risk.
Comment 3) There are some typos in the document (e.g. “patinets” and “propotion” in Results).
Using Word spell check would be useful.
Comment 4) The regression coefficients or related odds ratios that were used to create the
nomogram could be included in the paper if not already there. Table 4 presents a model with
intersphincteric resection, which was omitted from the final nomogram model due to lack of
statistical significance.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
No further comments."
assistant