Reviewer's report
Title:Surgery for fistula in ano in a specialist colorectal unit: a critical appraisal
Version: 1Date:28 July 2011
Reviewer: gennaro rosa
Reviewer's report:
This article is a case report,well detailed but some difficulty of interpretation and
some imprecision of terms and ratios reported are in the text.
An author, Shulka, quoted in discussion, is not reported in the references.
When I reviewed single paragraphes of the article I noted :
ABSTRACT- FIRST PARAGRAPH:
The follow-up range is acceptable,even if 3.8 months reported as the lowest is
too short to evaluate results of fistula-in-ano operation.
INTRODUCTION-SECOND PARAGRAPH :
The cutting seton procedure is well explained,but the surgical cutting after loose
seton is not described.
PATIENTS AND METHODS-THIRD PARAGRAPH:
Authors write that their cases were classified according to Parks’
classification,but in this one submucosal/superficial fistulae are not
included.Other classification,based on Parks’ ideas account them.
RESULTS-FOURTH PARAGRAPH:
Comorbidities have been treated at the same time of the fistula operation or not ?
Loose seton was the only treatment on 94 patietns ( 40.7% ) We know that loose
seton alone does not heal anal fistulas.
Authors must clarify better this detail in connection with the ratio of the cured
patiens reported.
Recurrence report,even if well detailed,is scattered and not on the whole
understandble; it would be better to modulate again it and make a synthesis.
Results explanation displays the surgical approach difficulties in many cases,but
is too detailed and forces the comprehension’s reader.
DISCUSSION- FIFTH PARAGRAPH:
Shulka et al. quoted as a reference with n.21 in the article is not included in the
references paragraph. 26 fistulae with Crohn disease on the whole 231 are not
24.3% but 11.25%.
CONCLUSION:
The article is acceptable with MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS, as pointed out
from the paragraphes review.
My advice on pubblication is positive.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have not competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Surgery for fistula in ano in a specialist colorectal unit: a critical appraisal
Version: 1Date:28 July 2011
Reviewer: gennaro rosa
Reviewer's report:
This article is a case report,well detailed but some difficulty of interpretation and
some imprecision of terms and ratios reported are in the text.
An author, Shulka, quoted in discussion, is not reported in the references.
When I reviewed single paragraphes of the article I noted :
ABSTRACT- FIRST PARAGRAPH:
The follow-up range is acceptable,even if 3.8 months reported as the lowest is
too short to evaluate results of fistula-in-ano operation.
INTRODUCTION-SECOND PARAGRAPH :
The cutting seton procedure is well explained,but the surgical cutting after loose
seton is not described.
PATIENTS AND METHODS-THIRD PARAGRAPH:
Authors write that their cases were classified according to Parks’
classification,but in this one submucosal/superficial fistulae are not
included.Other classification,based on Parks’ ideas account them.
RESULTS-FOURTH PARAGRAPH:
Comorbidities have been treated at the same time of the fistula operation or not ?
Loose seton was the only treatment on 94 patietns ( 40.7% ) We know that loose
seton alone does not heal anal fistulas.
Authors must clarify better this detail in connection with the ratio of the cured
patiens reported.
Recurrence report,even if well detailed,is scattered and not on the whole
understandble; it would be better to modulate again it and make a synthesis.
Results explanation displays the surgical approach difficulties in many cases,but
is too detailed and forces the comprehension’s reader.
DISCUSSION- FIFTH PARAGRAPH:
Shulka et al. quoted as a reference with n.21 in the article is not included in the
references paragraph. 26 fistulae with Crohn disease on the whole 231 are not
24.3% but 11.25%.
CONCLUSION:
The article is acceptable with MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS, as pointed out
from the paragraphes review.
My advice on pubblication is positive.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have not competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Surgery for fistula in ano in a specialist colorectal unit: a critical appraisal
Version: 1Date:28 July 2011
Reviewer: gennaro rosa
Reviewer's report:
This article is a case report,well detailed but some difficulty of interpretation and
some imprecision of terms and ratios reported are in the text.
An author, Shulka, quoted in discussion, is not reported in the references.
When I reviewed single paragraphes of the article I noted :
ABSTRACT- FIRST PARAGRAPH:
The follow-up range is acceptable,even if 3.8 months reported as the lowest is
too short to evaluate results of fistula-in-ano operation.
INTRODUCTION-SECOND PARAGRAPH :
The cutting seton procedure is well explained,but the surgical cutting after loose
seton is not described.
PATIENTS AND METHODS-THIRD PARAGRAPH:
Authors write that their cases were classified according to Parks’
classification,but in this one submucosal/superficial fistulae are not
included.Other classification,based on Parks’ ideas account them.
RESULTS-FOURTH PARAGRAPH:
Comorbidities have been treated at the same time of the fistula operation or not ?
Loose seton was the only treatment on 94 patietns ( 40.7% ) We know that loose
seton alone does not heal anal fistulas.
Authors must clarify better this detail in connection with the ratio of the cured
patiens reported.
Recurrence report,even if well detailed,is scattered and not on the whole
understandble; it would be better to modulate again it and make a synthesis.
Results explanation displays the surgical approach difficulties in many cases,but
is too detailed and forces the comprehension’s reader.
DISCUSSION- FIFTH PARAGRAPH:
Shulka et al. quoted as a reference with n.21 in the article is not included in the
references paragraph. 26 fistulae with Crohn disease on the whole 231 are not
24.3% but 11.25%.
CONCLUSION:
The article is acceptable with MINOR ESSENTIAL REVISIONS, as pointed out
from the paragraphes review.
My advice on pubblication is positive.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have not competing interests.
assistant