Reviewer’s report
Title: Clinical benefit of oral lactulose for postoperative care of pateints with complicated appendicitis
using propensity score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 25 May 2019
Reviewer: Luigi Brusciano
Reviewer's report:
The Authors presented an interesting analysis about clinical benefit of oral lactulose for postoperative
care  of  pateints  with  complicated  appendicitis.  It  is  a  debated  topic  that  needs  consideration  in
Literature. The article is well written and conducted. The reference are updated and the statistics are
readable. 
As minor revisions:
in  the  discussion  section  I  suggest  to  better  analyze  the  role  of  reabilitation  treatment  and  the
importance of controlled diet to prompt the canalization. Therefore the Authors should consider the
following papers:
"An imaginary cuboid: chest, abdomen, vertebral column and perineum, different parts of the same
whole in the harmonic functioning of the pelvic floor. Brusciano L, Gambardella C, Tolone S, Del
Genio G, Terracciano G, Gualtieri G, Schiano di Visconte M, Docimo L.Tech Coloproctol. 2019 May
7. doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01996-x. "
"Useful parameters helping proctologists to identify patients with defaecatory disorders that may be
treated with pelvic floor rehabilitation. Brusciano L, Limongelli P, del Genio G, Sansone S, Rossetti G,
Maffettone V, Napoletano V, Sagnelli C, Amoroso A, Russo G, Pizza F, Del Genio A. Tech Coloproctol.
2007 Mar;11(1):45-50. Epub 2007 Feb 16."
After these minor revisions the papaer will be suitable for publication, in my opinioin
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 the 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 years 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 any 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.
none
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be includedNon 
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 report 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: Clinical benefit of oral lactulose for postoperative care of pateints with complicated appendicitis
using propensity score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 25 May 2019
Reviewer: Luigi Brusciano
Reviewer's report:
The Authors presented an interesting analysis about clinical benefit of oral lactulose for postoperative
care  of  pateints  with  complicated  appendicitis.  It  is  a  debated  topic  that  needs  consideration  in
Literature. The article is well written and conducted. The reference are updated and the statistics are
readable. 
As minor revisions:
in  the  discussion  section  I  suggest  to  better  analyze  the  role  of  reabilitation  treatment  and  the
importance of controlled diet to prompt the canalization. Therefore the Authors should consider the
following papers:
"An imaginary cuboid: chest, abdomen, vertebral column and perineum, different parts of the same
whole in the harmonic functioning of the pelvic floor. Brusciano L, Gambardella C, Tolone S, Del
Genio G, Terracciano G, Gualtieri G, Schiano di Visconte M, Docimo L.Tech Coloproctol. 2019 May
7. doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01996-x. "
"Useful parameters helping proctologists to identify patients with defaecatory disorders that may be
treated with pelvic floor rehabilitation. Brusciano L, Limongelli P, del Genio G, Sansone S, Rossetti G,
Maffettone V, Napoletano V, Sagnelli C, Amoroso A, Russo G, Pizza F, Del Genio A. Tech Coloproctol.
2007 Mar;11(1):45-50. Epub 2007 Feb 16."
After these minor revisions the papaer will be suitable for publication, in my opinioin
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 the 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 years 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 any 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.
none
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be includedNon 
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 report 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: Clinical benefit of oral lactulose for postoperative care of pateints with complicated appendicitis
using propensity score matching analysis
Version: 0 Date: 25 May 2019
Reviewer: Luigi Brusciano
Reviewer's report:
The Authors presented an interesting analysis about clinical benefit of oral lactulose for postoperative
care  of  pateints  with  complicated  appendicitis.  It  is  a  debated  topic  that  needs  consideration  in
Literature. The article is well written and conducted. The reference are updated and the statistics are
readable. 
As minor revisions:
in  the  discussion  section  I  suggest  to  better  analyze  the  role  of  reabilitation  treatment  and  the
importance of controlled diet to prompt the canalization. Therefore the Authors should consider the
following papers:
"An imaginary cuboid: chest, abdomen, vertebral column and perineum, different parts of the same
whole in the harmonic functioning of the pelvic floor. Brusciano L, Gambardella C, Tolone S, Del
Genio G, Terracciano G, Gualtieri G, Schiano di Visconte M, Docimo L.Tech Coloproctol. 2019 May
7. doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01996-x. "
"Useful parameters helping proctologists to identify patients with defaecatory disorders that may be
treated with pelvic floor rehabilitation. Brusciano L, Limongelli P, del Genio G, Sansone S, Rossetti G,
Maffettone V, Napoletano V, Sagnelli C, Amoroso A, Russo G, Pizza F, Del Genio A. Tech Coloproctol.
2007 Mar;11(1):45-50. Epub 2007 Feb 16."
After these minor revisions the papaer will be suitable for publication, in my opinioin
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 the 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 years 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 any 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.
none
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be includedNon 
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 report 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