Title: Analysis of the Correlation between Defunctioning Stoma and Postoperative Low
Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectal Cancer#A prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Author Yuhan et al. have generally addressed the reviewers' comments, but the following are
inadequate and require further revision. In addition, there are a lot of minor errors throughout
the paper, which makes it difficult to say that the presentation of the paper is sufficiently neat
and tidy. It would be desirable to review the paper again after revisions are made to ensure that
it is readable and informative to the reader.
Major points
1. The explanation in Table 3 regarding the change in the number of cases over time is
insufficient. The figure explains that there were several cases that were lost to follow-up over
time, and that only 480 cases were finally followed up. However, in the review comments, the
authors explain that the number of cases at 6 months was 473 and at 12 months was 451, because
there were cases that were followed but LARS scores were not collected continuously. The
difference between the number of cases and the number of data is confusing to the reader and
should be clearly stated in the text. Also, please specify in the text not only the number of cases
for which data could not be collected, but also the reasons why.
2. L101 states that reoperation cases are excluded, but there are a total of 3 reoperation cases
listed in the bottom row of Table 2. Are these cases not excluded? If so, please explain the
reasons for your decision in the text.
3. L127 Please include Ref 10 as a reference in Table1. If you used the Chinese version of the
LARS score from Ref 11 for the questions, you should use the English version of the LARS
score from Ref 10 in Table 1.
4. L203, L334 ULAR results to be a risk factor for LARS and it is also mentioned in the
conclusion. Please describe in your discussion why ULAR is a risk factor for LARS rather than
ISR.
5. I strongly suggest the use of a professional English editing service. Many of the minor
revisions listed below should have been corrected by a professional editing service.
Minor points
6. The same expression appears twice in a row at the beginning of sentences L76 and L80. This
is inappropriate for the paper.
7. L87 is the first time the abbreviation LARS appears in the text, so please write the description
before the abbreviation and then use LARS. (It is usual to re-explain it in the text, even if it
appears once in the Abstract.)
8. The sentence in L142 is not complete; L146 is also broken in the middle of the sentence as
well.
9. L156 and L159 use different designations for "X2 test" and "chi-square". Please unify the
notation.
10. L173 In Table 2, "Surgical history-yes its pelvic" and "TNM classification description"
should not be on the same line. Put them in different rows. In addition, it is difficult to distinguish
between major items and their classifications in this table. To make it easier to distinguish
between major items and their classifications, please use solid or dashed lines between rows, or
move the beginning of the text down by one letter or something else.
11. Is the difference between the L183 operative styles significant only for HAR? If you did the
test for each operative style, please also include the results for LAR, ULAR, and ISR. If you did
the Kruskal Wallis test, please put the p-values in the operative style row, not in the HAR row.
12. Is the "and" after the punctuation in L190 appropriate? I feel that the sentences in L185-190
are not grammatically correct.
13. To easily distinguish between the major categories (stoma or not, stoma type, stoma reversal
time) and the details (defunctioning stoma/ non-defunctioning stoma,) in Table 3, please make
the major categories bold or use some other device so that they can be easily distinguished.
14. In Table 3, only the “Non-defunctioning stoma” has the first letter capitalized. Please be
consistent whether the first letter is capitalized or not.
15. In L198 Table 4, 5, and 6, gender (1) should be either "gender male" or "gender female,"
indicating whether the gender is "female" or "male.
16. I think the sentence in L249 is grammatically incorrect.
17. There is no reference (Ref 25) listed for the description of Vogel et al. in L270. Please list
the reference near the cited section.
18. L333 Instead of "typeaccording", insert a space between the two words and use "type
according".
Title: Analysis of the Correlation between Defunctioning Stoma and Postoperative Low
Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectal Cancer#A prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Author Yuhan et al. have generally addressed the reviewers' comments, but the following are
inadequate and require further revision. In addition, there are a lot of minor errors throughout
the paper, which makes it difficult to say that the presentation of the paper is sufficiently neat
and tidy. It would be desirable to review the paper again after revisions are made to ensure that
it is readable and informative to the reader.
Major points
1. The explanation in Table 3 regarding the change in the number of cases over time is
insufficient. The figure explains that there were several cases that were lost to follow-up over
time, and that only 480 cases were finally followed up. However, in the review comments, the
authors explain that the number of cases at 6 months was 473 and at 12 months was 451, because
there were cases that were followed but LARS scores were not collected continuously. The
difference between the number of cases and the number of data is confusing to the reader and
should be clearly stated in the text. Also, please specify in the text not only the number of cases
for which data could not be collected, but also the reasons why.
2. L101 states that reoperation cases are excluded, but there are a total of 3 reoperation cases
listed in the bottom row of Table 2. Are these cases not excluded? If so, please explain the
reasons for your decision in the text.
3. L127 Please include Ref 10 as a reference in Table1. If you used the Chinese version of the
LARS score from Ref 11 for the questions, you should use the English version of the LARS
score from Ref 10 in Table 1.
4. L203, L334 ULAR results to be a risk factor for LARS and it is also mentioned in the
conclusion. Please describe in your discussion why ULAR is a risk factor for LARS rather than
ISR.
5. I strongly suggest the use of a professional English editing service. Many of the minor
revisions listed below should have been corrected by a professional editing service.
Minor points
6. The same expression appears twice in a row at the beginning of sentences L76 and L80. This
is inappropriate for the paper.
7. L87 is the first time the abbreviation LARS appears in the text, so please write the description
before the abbreviation and then use LARS. (It is usual to re-explain it in the text, even if it
appears once in the Abstract.)
8. The sentence in L142 is not complete; L146 is also broken in the middle of the sentence as
well.
9. L156 and L159 use different designations for "X2 test" and "chi-square". Please unify the
notation.
10. L173 In Table 2, "Surgical history-yes its pelvic" and "TNM classification description"
should not be on the same line. Put them in different rows. In addition, it is difficult to distinguish
between major items and their classifications in this table. To make it easier to distinguish
between major items and their classifications, please use solid or dashed lines between rows, or
move the beginning of the text down by one letter or something else.
11. Is the difference between the L183 operative styles significant only for HAR? If you did the
test for each operative style, please also include the results for LAR, ULAR, and ISR. If you did
the Kruskal Wallis test, please put the p-values in the operative style row, not in the HAR row.
12. Is the "and" after the punctuation in L190 appropriate? I feel that the sentences in L185-190
are not grammatically correct.
13. To easily distinguish between the major categories (stoma or not, stoma type, stoma reversal
time) and the details (defunctioning stoma/ non-defunctioning stoma,) in Table 3, please make
the major categories bold or use some other device so that they can be easily distinguished.
14. In Table 3, only the “Non-defunctioning stoma” has the first letter capitalized. Please be
consistent whether the first letter is capitalized or not.
15. In L198 Table 4, 5, and 6, gender (1) should be either "gender male" or "gender female,"
indicating whether the gender is "female" or "male.
16. I think the sentence in L249 is grammatically incorrect.
17. There is no reference (Ref 25) listed for the description of Vogel et al. in L270. Please list
the reference near the cited section.
18. L333 Instead of "typeaccording", insert a space between the two words and use "type
according".
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Analysis of the Correlation between Defunctioning Stoma and Postoperative Low
Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectal Cancer#A prospective cohort study
Version: 2 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
Author Yuhan et al. have generally addressed the reviewers' comments, but the following are
inadequate and require further revision. In addition, there are a lot of minor errors throughout
the paper, which makes it difficult to say that the presentation of the paper is sufficiently neat
and tidy. It would be desirable to review the paper again after revisions are made to ensure that
it is readable and informative to the reader.
Major points
1. The explanation in Table 3 regarding the change in the number of cases over time is
insufficient. The figure explains that there were several cases that were lost to follow-up over
time, and that only 480 cases were finally followed up. However, in the review comments, the
authors explain that the number of cases at 6 months was 473 and at 12 months was 451, because
there were cases that were followed but LARS scores were not collected continuously. The
difference between the number of cases and the number of data is confusing to the reader and
should be clearly stated in the text. Also, please specify in the text not only the number of cases
for which data could not be collected, but also the reasons why.
2. L101 states that reoperation cases are excluded, but there are a total of 3 reoperation cases
listed in the bottom row of Table 2. Are these cases not excluded? If so, please explain the
reasons for your decision in the text.
3. L127 Please include Ref 10 as a reference in Table1. If you used the Chinese version of the
LARS score from Ref 11 for the questions, you should use the English version of the LARS
score from Ref 10 in Table 1.
4. L203, L334 ULAR results to be a risk factor for LARS and it is also mentioned in the
conclusion. Please describe in your discussion why ULAR is a risk factor for LARS rather than
ISR.
5. I strongly suggest the use of a professional English editing service. Many of the minor
revisions listed below should have been corrected by a professional editing service.
Minor points
6. The same expression appears twice in a row at the beginning of sentences L76 and L80. This
is inappropriate for the paper.
7. L87 is the first time the abbreviation LARS appears in the text, so please write the description
before the abbreviation and then use LARS. (It is usual to re-explain it in the text, even if it
appears once in the Abstract.)
8. The sentence in L142 is not complete; L146 is also broken in the middle of the sentence as
well.
9. L156 and L159 use different designations for "X2 test" and "chi-square". Please unify the
notation.
10. L173 In Table 2, "Surgical history-yes its pelvic" and "TNM classification description"
should not be on the same line. Put them in different rows. In addition, it is difficult to distinguish
between major items and their classifications in this table. To make it easier to distinguish
between major items and their classifications, please use solid or dashed lines between rows, or
move the beginning of the text down by one letter or something else.
11. Is the difference between the L183 operative styles significant only for HAR? If you did the
test for each operative style, please also include the results for LAR, ULAR, and ISR. If you did
the Kruskal Wallis test, please put the p-values in the operative style row, not in the HAR row.
12. Is the "and" after the punctuation in L190 appropriate? I feel that the sentences in L185-190
are not grammatically correct.
13. To easily distinguish between the major categories (stoma or not, stoma type, stoma reversal
time) and the details (defunctioning stoma/ non-defunctioning stoma,) in Table 3, please make
the major categories bold or use some other device so that they can be easily distinguished.
14. In Table 3, only the “Non-defunctioning stoma” has the first letter capitalized. Please be
consistent whether the first letter is capitalized or not.
15. In L198 Table 4, 5, and 6, gender (1) should be either "gender male" or "gender female,"
indicating whether the gender is "female" or "male.
16. I think the sentence in L249 is grammatically incorrect.
17. There is no reference (Ref 25) listed for the description of Vogel et al. in L270. Please list
the reference near the cited section.
18. L333 Instead of "typeaccording", insert a space between the two words and use "type
according".
assistant