Title: Study on the factors influencing the prognosis after perianal abscess surgery
Version: 1 Date: 08 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study analyzes factors for recurrence or delayed healing after perianal abscess treatment,
and is significant in that a large number of patients were analyzed in a single institution.
However, it is too insufficient to publish as a scientific manuscript. Because of the many
limitations of the methodology, the results have to be redrawn.
This study appears to be a retrospective design conducted by a single institution in China. It
seems better to omit the expression “in china” from the title because it can confuse the reader
with the whole of China.
It seems good to present p-values in each paragraph for statistically significant factors in the
abstract.
It should be shortened leaving only essential sentences in the introduction.
Showing a flow chart of patient selection will help make the authors’ article more persuasive.
The reviewer recommended classifying the group that does not heal after surgical drainage as
“Unhealed”, and the case of recurrence after complete recovery as “Recurrence”. What is not
healed and what recurs after being healed must be distinctly different.
In Table 2, you need to specifically write the p-value.
The classification of the location of the abscess cavity is also ambiguous. It seems better to
classify them as perianal, ischioanal, intersphincteric and supralevator.
The reviewer doesn't know what high blood routine examinations mean. Whether it is WBC or
CRP, a specific test name is required.
Title: Study on the factors influencing the prognosis after perianal abscess surgery
Version: 1 Date: 08 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study analyzes factors for recurrence or delayed healing after perianal abscess treatment,
and is significant in that a large number of patients were analyzed in a single institution.
However, it is too insufficient to publish as a scientific manuscript. Because of the many
limitations of the methodology, the results have to be redrawn.
This study appears to be a retrospective design conducted by a single institution in China. It
seems better to omit the expression “in china” from the title because it can confuse the reader
with the whole of China.
It seems good to present p-values in each paragraph for statistically significant factors in the
abstract.
It should be shortened leaving only essential sentences in the introduction.
Showing a flow chart of patient selection will help make the authors’ article more persuasive.
The reviewer recommended classifying the group that does not heal after surgical drainage as
“Unhealed”, and the case of recurrence after complete recovery as “Recurrence”. What is not
healed and what recurs after being healed must be distinctly different.
In Table 2, you need to specifically write the p-value.
The classification of the location of the abscess cavity is also ambiguous. It seems better to
classify them as perianal, ischioanal, intersphincteric and supralevator.
The reviewer doesn't know what high blood routine examinations mean. Whether it is WBC or
CRP, a specific test name is required.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Study on the factors influencing the prognosis after perianal abscess surgery
Version: 1 Date: 08 Mar 2023
Reviewer's report:
This study analyzes factors for recurrence or delayed healing after perianal abscess treatment,
and is significant in that a large number of patients were analyzed in a single institution.
However, it is too insufficient to publish as a scientific manuscript. Because of the many
limitations of the methodology, the results have to be redrawn.
This study appears to be a retrospective design conducted by a single institution in China. It
seems better to omit the expression “in china” from the title because it can confuse the reader
with the whole of China.
It seems good to present p-values in each paragraph for statistically significant factors in the
abstract.
It should be shortened leaving only essential sentences in the introduction.
Showing a flow chart of patient selection will help make the authors’ article more persuasive.
The reviewer recommended classifying the group that does not heal after surgical drainage as
“Unhealed”, and the case of recurrence after complete recovery as “Recurrence”. What is not
healed and what recurs after being healed must be distinctly different.
In Table 2, you need to specifically write the p-value.
The classification of the location of the abscess cavity is also ambiguous. It seems better to
classify them as perianal, ischioanal, intersphincteric and supralevator.
The reviewer doesn't know what high blood routine examinations mean. Whether it is WBC or
CRP, a specific test name is required.
assistant