Title: High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
Associated with Moderate Rectocele Compared to Healthy Individuals
Version: 9 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have revised the manuscript based on the comments of
the reviewrs. The manometry procedure has been effectively summarised.
There is one section I flagged in my previous comments, which the authors have revised. I still
find this difficult to read, but will allow the editors to make the decision on that section.
The rest of the article is ready for publication.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Listed above
Title: High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
Associated with Moderate Rectocele Compared to Healthy Individuals
Version: 9 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have revised the manuscript based on the comments of
the reviewrs. The manometry procedure has been effectively summarised.
There is one section I flagged in my previous comments, which the authors have revised. I still
find this difficult to read, but will allow the editors to make the decision on that section.
The rest of the article is ready for publication.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Listed above
Please review this paper.
user
Title: High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
Associated with Moderate Rectocele Compared to Healthy Individuals
Version: 9 Date: 04 Nov 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (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 sufficient 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?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have revised the manuscript based on the comments of
the reviewrs. The manometry procedure has been effectively summarised.
There is one section I flagged in my previous comments, which the authors have revised. I still
find this difficult to read, but will allow the editors to make the decision on that section.
The rest of the article is ready for publication.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Listed above
assistant