Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 8 Date: 07 Sep 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?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed all of the granular issues I highighted.
The fundamental issue I highlighted earlier remains. The authors have included those with and
without stoma in one group. Additionally, they have not considred asymtomatic anastomotic
leaks. The presence of a stoma clearly reduces anastomotic leaks -
https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-014-0417-1#:~:text=The%20present
%20meta%2Danalysis%20demonstrated,%2C%20Figure%202)%2C%20respectively.
The authors should at least do a subgroup comparison between those with and without stoma,
or do a single analysis.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors need to either remove patients with a stoma from the analysis, or do a subgroup
analysis.
Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 8 Date: 07 Sep 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?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed all of the granular issues I highighted.
The fundamental issue I highlighted earlier remains. The authors have included those with and
without stoma in one group. Additionally, they have not considred asymtomatic anastomotic
leaks. The presence of a stoma clearly reduces anastomotic leaks -
https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-014-0417-1#:~:text=The%20present
%20meta%2Danalysis%20demonstrated,%2C%20Figure%202)%2C%20respectively.
The authors should at least do a subgroup comparison between those with and without stoma,
or do a single analysis.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors need to either remove patients with a stoma from the analysis, or do a subgroup
analysis.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Risk assessment of rectal anastomotic leakage (RAREAL) after DIXON in non-
emergency patients with rectal cancer: a retrospective study
Version: 8 Date: 07 Sep 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?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have addressed all of the granular issues I highighted.
The fundamental issue I highlighted earlier remains. The authors have included those with and
without stoma in one group. Additionally, they have not considred asymtomatic anastomotic
leaks. The presence of a stoma clearly reduces anastomotic leaks -
https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-014-0417-1#:~:text=The%20present
%20meta%2Danalysis%20demonstrated,%2C%20Figure%202)%2C%20respectively.
The authors should at least do a subgroup comparison between those with and without stoma,
or do a single analysis.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors need to either remove patients with a stoma from the analysis, or do a subgroup
analysis.
assistant