Title: HAEMORRHOIDAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY: RESULTS FROM A SELF-
ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED BY MEANS OF A SOCIAL
NETWORK
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor 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 minor 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I do not feel your manuscript is ready for publication at this time.
Please consider your main message (i.e., result) and what data you need to show to illustrate
the point.
As a reviewer - I feel I want to see at table of your 1) population; 2) characteristics of sample
by groups; and 3) your main analysis.
The figure you have is also beneficial but needs to be redesigned - please look at similar figures
in our published manuscripts as a guide.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
See previous comments submitted in my first review:
1) Please add a table 1 to describe your population as best as possible including those w/HD
and those w/out.
2) Current tables 1-2 can be put together and create a new table 2. Also OR are not appropriate
for this analysis or from what I understand you did from the text. If you did to a regression
analysis please include details in your methods section. From my understanding you would just
need to conduct a t-test to look at group differences.
Please consider changing your figures to tables that report frequency and percentage vs using
so many small figures. The message of the differences between the groups gets lost as you have
to review each figure. Much easier to view in a table.
Title: HAEMORRHOIDAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY: RESULTS FROM A SELF-
ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED BY MEANS OF A SOCIAL
NETWORK
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor 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 minor 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I do not feel your manuscript is ready for publication at this time.
Please consider your main message (i.e., result) and what data you need to show to illustrate
the point.
As a reviewer - I feel I want to see at table of your 1) population; 2) characteristics of sample
by groups; and 3) your main analysis.
The figure you have is also beneficial but needs to be redesigned - please look at similar figures
in our published manuscripts as a guide.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
See previous comments submitted in my first review:
1) Please add a table 1 to describe your population as best as possible including those w/HD
and those w/out.
2) Current tables 1-2 can be put together and create a new table 2. Also OR are not appropriate
for this analysis or from what I understand you did from the text. If you did to a regression
analysis please include details in your methods section. From my understanding you would just
need to conduct a t-test to look at group differences.
Please consider changing your figures to tables that report frequency and percentage vs using
so many small figures. The message of the differences between the groups gets lost as you have
to review each figure. Much easier to view in a table.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: HAEMORRHOIDAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY: RESULTS FROM A SELF-
ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED BY MEANS OF A SOCIAL
NETWORK
Version: 5 Date: 21 Jan 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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor 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 minor 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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I do not feel your manuscript is ready for publication at this time.
Please consider your main message (i.e., result) and what data you need to show to illustrate
the point.
As a reviewer - I feel I want to see at table of your 1) population; 2) characteristics of sample
by groups; and 3) your main analysis.
The figure you have is also beneficial but needs to be redesigned - please look at similar figures
in our published manuscripts as a guide.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
See previous comments submitted in my first review:
1) Please add a table 1 to describe your population as best as possible including those w/HD
and those w/out.
2) Current tables 1-2 can be put together and create a new table 2. Also OR are not appropriate
for this analysis or from what I understand you did from the text. If you did to a regression
analysis please include details in your methods section. From my understanding you would just
need to conduct a t-test to look at group differences.
Please consider changing your figures to tables that report frequency and percentage vs using
so many small figures. The message of the differences between the groups gets lost as you have
to review each figure. Much easier to view in a table.
assistant