Title: Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a
propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and
the modified Aldrete score
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Manuscripts entitled “Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative
endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring
system and the modified Aldrete score.”
Thank you for allowing me to review this article.
The study aimed to test two anesthetic recovery scores, the modified post-anesthetic discharge
scoring system (MPADSS) and the modified Aldrete score. This study is intriguing and valuable.
However, I have a few comments regarding the article.
- As for theoretical design, data collection design, and statistical analysis, this study greatly
did all the processes. The propensity scores technique for comparing both scores’ results was
also appropriate, and both scores-matched groups had high balanced covariates. In addition,
covariates were suitably chosen.
- All sections in the manuscript were also well-written. All limitations were adequately provided.
- Nevertheless, there is a minor issue regarding the addition of footnotes. In Tables 2 and 3,
similar to the footnote of Table 1 (* Results are presented as the number of patients or mean
± standard deviation), a footnote may be required as there are also some variables presented as
mean ± standard deviation without specification.
In summary, the overall study is well-established regardless of a suggested minor change. I
would like to send my congratulations to the authors.
Title: Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a
propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and
the modified Aldrete score
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Manuscripts entitled “Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative
endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring
system and the modified Aldrete score.”
Thank you for allowing me to review this article.
The study aimed to test two anesthetic recovery scores, the modified post-anesthetic discharge
scoring system (MPADSS) and the modified Aldrete score. This study is intriguing and valuable.
However, I have a few comments regarding the article.
- As for theoretical design, data collection design, and statistical analysis, this study greatly
did all the processes. The propensity scores technique for comparing both scores’ results was
also appropriate, and both scores-matched groups had high balanced covariates. In addition,
covariates were suitably chosen.
- All sections in the manuscript were also well-written. All limitations were adequately provided.
- Nevertheless, there is a minor issue regarding the addition of footnotes. In Tables 2 and 3,
similar to the footnote of Table 1 (* Results are presented as the number of patients or mean
± standard deviation), a footnote may be required as there are also some variables presented as
mean ± standard deviation without specification.
In summary, the overall study is well-established regardless of a suggested minor change. I
would like to send my congratulations to the authors.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative endoscopy: a
propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring system and
the modified Aldrete score
Version: 3 Date: 24 Jul 2022
Reviewer's report:
Manuscripts entitled “Usefulness of discharge standards in outpatients undergoing sedative
endoscopy: a propensity score-matched study of the modified post-anesthetic discharge scoring
system and the modified Aldrete score.”
Thank you for allowing me to review this article.
The study aimed to test two anesthetic recovery scores, the modified post-anesthetic discharge
scoring system (MPADSS) and the modified Aldrete score. This study is intriguing and valuable.
However, I have a few comments regarding the article.
- As for theoretical design, data collection design, and statistical analysis, this study greatly
did all the processes. The propensity scores technique for comparing both scores’ results was
also appropriate, and both scores-matched groups had high balanced covariates. In addition,
covariates were suitably chosen.
- All sections in the manuscript were also well-written. All limitations were adequately provided.
- Nevertheless, there is a minor issue regarding the addition of footnotes. In Tables 2 and 3,
similar to the footnote of Table 1 (* Results are presented as the number of patients or mean
± standard deviation), a footnote may be required as there are also some variables presented as
mean ± standard deviation without specification.
In summary, the overall study is well-established regardless of a suggested minor change. I
would like to send my congratulations to the authors.
assistant