Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
Version: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Mohamed H. Zidan
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
I have reviewed your manuscript with interest, particularly due to its innovative approach.
I commend the authors for their creative conceptualization and application of this strategy.
However, I would like to raise several points for your consideration that warrant correction, and
I prefer to structure my feedback according to the content organization.
Firstly, the abstract is extensive and could benefit from conciseness without sacrificing
coherence. Lengthy abstracts can reflect a poor command of the English language and may deter
readers.
Secondly, the background section lacks clarity regarding the study’s objective and methodology.
I found it necessary to invest time in discerning the specific type of article presented. I
recommend incorporating a succinct paragraph that clearly defines the aim and methodology.
Furthermore, the inclusion of a literature search within the methodology section appears to create
confusion. Given that this is an original research article, the mention of a literature search may
mislead readers into interpreting the manuscript as a review article. It is advisable to incorporate
findings from the literature search in the discussion section, with appropriate references, as
well-regarded authors typically conduct literature reviews to enhance their discussions without
explicitly stating their literature search.
Additionally, the use of bullet points detracts from the overall reading experience. I suggest
rephrasing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as points presented throughout the article,
into cohesive paragraphs to enhance clarity and coherence.
The methodology section is excessively lengthy and, while descriptive, may obscure the primary
objective of your research. It is important to present the methodology clearly and concisely to
ensure that readers grasp the essential elements without unnecessary complexity.
Moreover, I have identified a significant limitation pertaining to the unequal distribution of
subjects in both groups. While this is not uncommon in research, I recommend employing
propensity score matching to bolster the validity of your findings, along with appropriate sample
size measurements.
Finally, it is critical to address the surgical outcomes related to the preoperative optimization
strategy. The manuscript currently lacks data on surgical outcomes, including instances of
bleeding and bile duct injuries. Providing this information is essential to evaluate whether pre-
admission factors may impose limitations on patient assessment.
I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
MZ
Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
Version: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Mohamed H. Zidan
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
I have reviewed your manuscript with interest, particularly due to its innovative approach.
I commend the authors for their creative conceptualization and application of this strategy.
However, I would like to raise several points for your consideration that warrant correction, and
I prefer to structure my feedback according to the content organization.
Firstly, the abstract is extensive and could benefit from conciseness without sacrificing
coherence. Lengthy abstracts can reflect a poor command of the English language and may deter
readers.
Secondly, the background section lacks clarity regarding the study’s objective and methodology.
I found it necessary to invest time in discerning the specific type of article presented. I
recommend incorporating a succinct paragraph that clearly defines the aim and methodology.
Furthermore, the inclusion of a literature search within the methodology section appears to create
confusion. Given that this is an original research article, the mention of a literature search may
mislead readers into interpreting the manuscript as a review article. It is advisable to incorporate
findings from the literature search in the discussion section, with appropriate references, as
well-regarded authors typically conduct literature reviews to enhance their discussions without
explicitly stating their literature search.
Additionally, the use of bullet points detracts from the overall reading experience. I suggest
rephrasing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as points presented throughout the article,
into cohesive paragraphs to enhance clarity and coherence.
The methodology section is excessively lengthy and, while descriptive, may obscure the primary
objective of your research. It is important to present the methodology clearly and concisely to
ensure that readers grasp the essential elements without unnecessary complexity.
Moreover, I have identified a significant limitation pertaining to the unequal distribution of
subjects in both groups. While this is not uncommon in research, I recommend employing
propensity score matching to bolster the validity of your findings, along with appropriate sample
size measurements.
Finally, it is critical to address the surgical outcomes related to the preoperative optimization
strategy. The manuscript currently lacks data on surgical outcomes, including instances of
bleeding and bile duct injuries. Providing this information is essential to evaluate whether pre-
admission factors may impose limitations on patient assessment.
I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
MZ
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
Version: 2 Date: 01 Dec 2024
Reviewer:  Mohamed H. Zidan
Reviewer's report:
Dear Authors,
Re: Preoperative Optimization Strategy Management Model Applied in Gallbladder Surgery
I have reviewed your manuscript with interest, particularly due to its innovative approach.
I commend the authors for their creative conceptualization and application of this strategy.
However, I would like to raise several points for your consideration that warrant correction, and
I prefer to structure my feedback according to the content organization.
Firstly, the abstract is extensive and could benefit from conciseness without sacrificing
coherence. Lengthy abstracts can reflect a poor command of the English language and may deter
readers.
Secondly, the background section lacks clarity regarding the study’s objective and methodology.
I found it necessary to invest time in discerning the specific type of article presented. I
recommend incorporating a succinct paragraph that clearly defines the aim and methodology.
Furthermore, the inclusion of a literature search within the methodology section appears to create
confusion. Given that this is an original research article, the mention of a literature search may
mislead readers into interpreting the manuscript as a review article. It is advisable to incorporate
findings from the literature search in the discussion section, with appropriate references, as
well-regarded authors typically conduct literature reviews to enhance their discussions without
explicitly stating their literature search.
Additionally, the use of bullet points detracts from the overall reading experience. I suggest
rephrasing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as points presented throughout the article,
into cohesive paragraphs to enhance clarity and coherence.
The methodology section is excessively lengthy and, while descriptive, may obscure the primary
objective of your research. It is important to present the methodology clearly and concisely to
ensure that readers grasp the essential elements without unnecessary complexity.
Moreover, I have identified a significant limitation pertaining to the unequal distribution of
subjects in both groups. While this is not uncommon in research, I recommend employing
propensity score matching to bolster the validity of your findings, along with appropriate sample
size measurements.
Finally, it is critical to address the surgical outcomes related to the preoperative optimization
strategy. The manuscript currently lacks data on surgical outcomes, including instances of
bleeding and bile duct injuries. Providing this information is essential to evaluate whether pre-
admission factors may impose limitations on patient assessment.
I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
MZ
assistant