Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Costs and quality of life of small incision -open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic 
cholecystectomy. An expertise -based randomised controlled trial.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Emanuele Lo Menzo  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I congratulate the authors for the manuscript entitled: "Costs and quality of life of small incision -
open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An expertise -based randomised 
controlled trial".  
In this randomized trial the authors compare small -incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) and 
laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) .  
 
I have few questions and comments:  
Do you have any data on the preoperative body mass index of the patients. I suspect that in other 
part of the world where obesity is more prev alent it would be difficult to perform small -incision 
open cholecystectomy (SIOC)  
2- Do you have any criteria in how you selected 8 cm as the cut off for the designation of small -
incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) vs. open cholecystectomy?  
3- Any specif ic data on the postoperative pain. Although the incision might be small in the 
small -incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) group, the location and the division of the 
rectus muscle would likely influence postoperative pain.  
4- Any difference in operative ti me or perioperative complications/  
Thank you again for the opportunity to read the manuscript.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?   
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in a ny way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you  can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my repo rt to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Costs and quality of life of small incision -open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic 
cholecystectomy. An expertise -based randomised controlled trial.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Emanuele Lo Menzo  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I congratulate the authors for the manuscript entitled: "Costs and quality of life of small incision -
open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An expertise -based randomised 
controlled trial".  
In this randomized trial the authors compare small -incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) and 
laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) .  
 
I have few questions and comments:  
Do you have any data on the preoperative body mass index of the patients. I suspect that in other 
part of the world where obesity is more prev alent it would be difficult to perform small -incision 
open cholecystectomy (SIOC)  
2- Do you have any criteria in how you selected 8 cm as the cut off for the designation of small -
incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) vs. open cholecystectomy?  
3- Any specif ic data on the postoperative pain. Although the incision might be small in the 
small -incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) group, the location and the division of the 
rectus muscle would likely influence postoperative pain.  
4- Any difference in operative ti me or perioperative complications/  
Thank you again for the opportunity to read the manuscript.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?   
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in a ny way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you  can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my repo rt to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Costs and quality of life of small incision -open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic 
cholecystectomy. An expertise -based randomised controlled trial.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 08 Apr 2016  
 
Reviewer: Emanuele Lo Menzo  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
I congratulate the authors for the manuscript entitled: "Costs and quality of life of small incision -
open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. An expertise -based randomised 
controlled trial".  
In this randomized trial the authors compare small -incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) and 
laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) .  
 
I have few questions and comments:  
Do you have any data on the preoperative body mass index of the patients. I suspect that in other 
part of the world where obesity is more prev alent it would be difficult to perform small -incision 
open cholecystectomy (SIOC)  
2- Do you have any criteria in how you selected 8 cm as the cut off for the designation of small -
incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) vs. open cholecystectomy?  
3- Any specif ic data on the postoperative pain. Although the incision might be small in the 
small -incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) group, the location and the division of the 
rectus muscle would likely influence postoperative pain.  
4- Any difference in operative ti me or perioperative complications/  
Thank you again for the opportunity to read the manuscript.  
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in t he manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?   
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in a ny way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you  can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
'I declare that I have no competing interests'  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my repo rt to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant