Title: High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
Associated with Moderate Rectocele Compared to Healthy Individuals
Version: 8 Date: 07 Oct 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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 substantial improvements to the manuscript, by
addressing most of the questions raised by me.
Some minor issues remain. If these are also addressed, the paper could be considered for
publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Several sections of the manuscript could benefit from revisions.
1.3 - Manometry process- This could be shortened, with the full description added as
supplementary material, or a standard textbook could be cited.
2.2.6 - Even after the revision, I find this section difficult to understand.
Title: High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
Associated with Moderate Rectocele Compared to Healthy Individuals
Version: 8 Date: 07 Oct 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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 substantial improvements to the manuscript, by
addressing most of the questions raised by me.
Some minor issues remain. If these are also addressed, the paper could be considered for
publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Several sections of the manuscript could benefit from revisions.
1.3 - Manometry process- This could be shortened, with the full description added as
supplementary material, or a standard textbook could be cited.
2.2.6 - Even after the revision, I find this section difficult to understand.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: High-Resolution Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosing Obstructed Defecation Syndrome
Associated with Moderate Rectocele Compared to Healthy Individuals
Version: 8 Date: 07 Oct 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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 substantial improvements to the manuscript, by
addressing most of the questions raised by me.
Some minor issues remain. If these are also addressed, the paper could be considered for
publication.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Several sections of the manuscript could benefit from revisions.
1.3 - Manometry process- This could be shortened, with the full description added as
supplementary material, or a standard textbook could be cited.
2.2.6 - Even after the revision, I find this section difficult to understand.
assistant