Title: Advantages Comparison of Peritoneal Drainage versus No Drainage after Laparoscopic
Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this meta-analysis. It addresses a highly relevant topic
(evidence for drainage in laparoscopic appendectomy). The strengths of this meta-analysis lie,
on the one hand, in the selection of the studies considered (n = 14) and, on the other hand,
in the careful statistical analysis. The accompanying figures are clearly structured and help to
understand the results.
Despite all the existing limitations (inclusion of many retrospective studies, n = 11), which are
also discussed by the authors, I consider the meta-analysis to be an important contribution to
the topic. Accept.
Title: Advantages Comparison of Peritoneal Drainage versus No Drainage after Laparoscopic
Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this meta-analysis. It addresses a highly relevant topic
(evidence for drainage in laparoscopic appendectomy). The strengths of this meta-analysis lie,
on the one hand, in the selection of the studies considered (n = 14) and, on the other hand,
in the careful statistical analysis. The accompanying figures are clearly structured and help to
understand the results.
Despite all the existing limitations (inclusion of many retrospective studies, n = 11), which are
also discussed by the authors, I consider the meta-analysis to be an important contribution to
the topic. Accept.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Advantages Comparison of Peritoneal Drainage versus No Drainage after Laparoscopic
Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis
Version: 3 Date: 15 Sep 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this meta-analysis. It addresses a highly relevant topic
(evidence for drainage in laparoscopic appendectomy). The strengths of this meta-analysis lie,
on the one hand, in the selection of the studies considered (n = 14) and, on the other hand,
in the careful statistical analysis. The accompanying figures are clearly structured and help to
understand the results.
Despite all the existing limitations (inclusion of many retrospective studies, n = 11), which are
also discussed by the authors, I consider the meta-analysis to be an important contribution to
the topic. Accept.
assistant