Title: Perioperative outcomes of the surgical management of achalasia in two tertiary
Cameroonian hospitals: a cohort study
Version: 6 Date: 23 Feb 2024
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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO
EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes well done authors
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done authors
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
This is ready to be published.  The
minor changes I suggest can be delt with by journal editor . Excellent study !
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have re-read the entire manuscript  all my suggestions are minor and will only to buff it up a
bit.  AUTHORS CONGRATULATIONS THIS IS  A REALLY GOOD SUBMISSION- Well
down you should be proud of this study!
1.line 143 change to “Student’s”
2. Line 167 change to 1.0+\- 1.1
3. Line 192 and 376 change to esophagocardiomyotomy
4.line 199. I would change the word “barium” to “radiographic contrast” I’d really barium
wouldn’t be used because debasement of barium in periesophageal tissues is quite difficult.
Probably a water soluble agents was used d so stick with “radiographic contrast”
5. Line 275. Change gender to “sex” and suggest ending the sentence with “for as yet unknown
reasons”. That will at least acknowledge the presence of a female preponderance in  relation to
other series else where ( not just Africa).
6. Line 377.  The word of dilaceration is used in dentistry and not here change to “myotomy
Title: Perioperative outcomes of the surgical management of achalasia in two tertiary
Cameroonian hospitals: a cohort study
Version: 6 Date: 23 Feb 2024
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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO
EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes well done authors
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done authors
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
This is ready to be published.  The
minor changes I suggest can be delt with by journal editor . Excellent study !
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have re-read the entire manuscript  all my suggestions are minor and will only to buff it up a
bit.  AUTHORS CONGRATULATIONS THIS IS  A REALLY GOOD SUBMISSION- Well
down you should be proud of this study!
1.line 143 change to “Student’s”
2. Line 167 change to 1.0+\- 1.1
3. Line 192 and 376 change to esophagocardiomyotomy
4.line 199. I would change the word “barium” to “radiographic contrast” I’d really barium
wouldn’t be used because debasement of barium in periesophageal tissues is quite difficult.
Probably a water soluble agents was used d so stick with “radiographic contrast”
5. Line 275. Change gender to “sex” and suggest ending the sentence with “for as yet unknown
reasons”. That will at least acknowledge the presence of a female preponderance in  relation to
other series else where ( not just Africa).
6. Line 377.  The word of dilaceration is used in dentistry and not here change to “myotomy
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Perioperative outcomes of the surgical management of achalasia in two tertiary
Cameroonian hospitals: a cohort study
Version: 6 Date: 23 Feb 2024
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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: HAVE THE AUTHORS RESPONDED ADEQUATELY TO
EACH OF THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED IN YOUR COMMENTS
Yes well done authors
HAVE THEY MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT
Yes well done authors
WHAT IS YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT
This is ready to be published.  The
minor changes I suggest can be delt with by journal editor . Excellent study !
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL REVISIONS THE AUTHORS SHOULD MAKE
I have re-read the entire manuscript  all my suggestions are minor and will only to buff it up a
bit.  AUTHORS CONGRATULATIONS THIS IS  A REALLY GOOD SUBMISSION- Well
down you should be proud of this study!
1.line 143 change to “Student’s”
2. Line 167 change to 1.0+\- 1.1
3. Line 192 and 376 change to esophagocardiomyotomy
4.line 199. I would change the word “barium” to “radiographic contrast” I’d really barium
wouldn’t be used because debasement of barium in periesophageal tissues is quite difficult.
Probably a water soluble agents was used d so stick with “radiographic contrast”
5. Line 275. Change gender to “sex” and suggest ending the sentence with “for as yet unknown
reasons”. That will at least acknowledge the presence of a female preponderance in  relation to
other series else where ( not just Africa).
6. Line 377.  The word of dilaceration is used in dentistry and not here change to “myotomy
assistant