Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Open necrosectomy combined with continuous positive drai nage and prophylactic 
diverting loop ileostomy for late infected pancreatic necrosis: a retrospective cohort study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Researc h Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear obj ective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidenc e in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recom mend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to my comments but not made  some 
changes I recommended.  
I think the manuscript requires revision.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
In tables please provide the names of measurements (if numbers are mean, median, range). They 
are given in Table 1, but not in Table 2 and Table 3.  
In tables plea se mark the statistical tests used for comparisons, and define them in footer.  
 
I recommend that, time to pulmonary, circulatory and kidney failure to be evaluated using either 
a cox -regression or Kaplan -Meier analysis. We do not know if patients would hav e developed 
these outcomes after discharge.  
Since the authors are comparing a time variable, using only the cases with event would yield not 
including these censored events.  
 
Line 278 and line 307 please remove "etc."  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in y our comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to th e content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do y ou have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a  partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the web site along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Open necrosectomy combined with continuous positive drai nage and prophylactic 
diverting loop ileostomy for late infected pancreatic necrosis: a retrospective cohort study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Researc h Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear obj ective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidenc e in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recom mend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to my comments but not made  some 
changes I recommended.  
I think the manuscript requires revision.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
In tables please provide the names of measurements (if numbers are mean, median, range). They 
are given in Table 1, but not in Table 2 and Table 3.  
In tables plea se mark the statistical tests used for comparisons, and define them in footer.  
 
I recommend that, time to pulmonary, circulatory and kidney failure to be evaluated using either 
a cox -regression or Kaplan -Meier analysis. We do not know if patients would hav e developed 
these outcomes after discharge.  
Since the authors are comparing a time variable, using only the cases with event would yield not 
including these censored events.  
 
Line 278 and line 307 please remove "etc."  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in y our comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to th e content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do y ou have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a  partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the web site along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Open necrosectomy combined with continuous positive drai nage and prophylactic 
diverting loop ileostomy for late infected pancreatic necrosis: a retrospective cohort study  
 
Version: 2 Date: 02 Mar 2020  
 
Reviewer: Researc h Square Reviewer 1  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:  
 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several 
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)  
Yes - there is a clear obj ective  
 
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for the 
objective?  
Yes - the approach is appropriate  
 
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to 
allow confidenc e in the results?  
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately  
 
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?  
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study  
 
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not 
overstated?  
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable  
 
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently 
for you to now recom mend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further 
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?  
Probably - with minor revisions  
 
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:  
 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have responded to my comments but not made  some 
changes I recommended.  
I think the manuscript requires revision.  
 
REQUESTED REVISIONS:  
In tables please provide the names of measurements (if numbers are mean, median, range). They 
are given in Table 1, but not in Table 2 and Table 3.  
In tables plea se mark the statistical tests used for comparisons, and define them in footer.  
 
I recommend that, time to pulmonary, circulatory and kidney failure to be evaluated using either 
a cox -regression or Kaplan -Meier analysis. We do not know if patients would hav e developed 
these outcomes after discharge.  
Since the authors are comparing a time variable, using only the cases with event would yield not 
including these censored events.  
 
Line 278 and line 307 please remove "etc."  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in y our comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing in terests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, f ees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in t he future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to th e content of the 
manuscript?  
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
6. Do y ou have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a  partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer  
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the web site along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be in cluded as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant